Relevance (law)

Relevance, in the common law of evidence, is the tendency of a given item of evidence to prove or disprove one of the legal elements of the case, or to have probative value to make one of the elements of the case likelier or not. Evidence that is irrelevant has no bearing on any of the issues, and the rules of evidence exclude it.

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence (United States jurisdiction)

Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence defines the term as follows:

"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

This definition incorporates the requirement that evidence be both material ("of consequence to the determination of the action") and have probative value ("having any tendency to make the existence of any [material] fact...more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence"). [Fisher, George. "Evidence". pp. 18-19. Foundation Press, 2002. ISBN 1-58778-176-X]

Evidence and the Matter Properly Provable

Relevancy is not an inherent characteristic of any item of evidence but exists only as a relation between an item of evidence and a matter properly provable in the case. [Advisory Committee’s Note to Rule 401, Fed. R. Evid.]

The initial step in determining relevancy is therefore to identify the "matter properly provable." As Professor James explained in a highly-regarded article, ' [t] o discover the relevancy of an offered item of evidence one must first discover to what proposition it is supposed to be relevant." [ United States v. Foster 986 F.2d 541 (D.C. Cir. 1993) citing James, Relevancy, Probability and the Law, 29 Cal. L. Rev. 689, 696 n. 15 (1941).]

Relevance and Admissibility

Generally, relevant evidence is admissible. [Fed. R. Evid. 402 (2007)] However, relevant evidence is not admissible if prohibited by the Constitution, an Act of Congress, by the Federal Rules of Evidence, or by rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. ["Id."] Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, relevant evidence may be excluded on the basis of enumerated grounds. ["See" Fed. R. Evid. 403 (2007)]

Relevance is Required but May Not be Sufficient

Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.

Relevance is ordinarily a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition, for the admissibility of evidence. For example, relevant evidence may be excluded if its tendency to prove or disprove a fact is heavily outweighed by the possibility that the evidence will prejudice or confuse the jury.

Inadmissible versus Excluded Evidence

FRE 402 refers to relevant evidence as 'inadmissible' if 'otherwise provided by' several sources of law. [Fed. R. Evid. 402] . Yet, FRE 403 refers to 'exclusion of "relevant"' evidence. [Fed. R. Evid. 403] It is clear that evidence excluded under FRE 403 is inadmissible. However, it is not clear that inadmissible evidence is considered 'excluded' within the meaning of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Exclusion of Relevant Evidence

Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of one of the enumerated grounds for exclusion. [Federal Rules of Evidence 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time] The grounds for exclusion include unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of:
* unfair prejudice;
* confusion of the issues;
* misleading the jury;
* considerations of undue delay;
* waste of time; or
* needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

In a exemplary hypothetical; if 100 witnesses saw the same accident, and would each give roughly the same description of the event, the testimony of each would be equally relevant, but it would be a waste of time or a needless presentation of cumulative evidence to have all 100 repeat the same facts at trial.

Preservation of the Issue

To preserve legal error for review, objections must be raised. [Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(1)] Oftentimes objections against the introduction of evidence is made on the basis of relevance. However, the rules and opinions demonstrate that relevant evidence includes a significant portion of typically offered evidence. Since objections are required to the specific and timely, merely objecting on the basis of relevance, without more, may prevent the review of legal error on appeal. [Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(1)] [United States v. Wilson, 966 F.2d 243 (7th Cir. 1992)] More particularly, making an objection based on “relevance” does not preserve an error based on Rule 403. [United States v. Wilson, 966 F.2d 243 (7th Cir. 1992)] Cases that lack specific and timely objections are sometimes referred to a having 'poor records' because errors made by the lower court may not be reviewed on appeal.

Public policy concerns

A variety of social policies operate to exclude relevant evidence. Thus, there are limitations on the use of evidence of liability insurance, subsequent remedial measures, settlement offers, and plea negotiations, mainly because it is thought that the use of such evidence discourages parties from carrying insurance, fixing hazardous conditions, offering to settle, and pleading guilty to crimes, respectively.

References