Relevance (law)

Lore & Background

In the common law of evidence, relevance is defined as the tendency of a piece of evidence to prove or disprove a legal element of a case, or to have probative value—meaning it makes a material fact more or less probable than it would be without that evidence. Probative evidence is described as evidence that "seeks the truth." Evidence that lacks probative value is generally inadmissible and may be excluded from proceedings if an objection is raised. A balancing test may be applied when the probative value of evidence must be weighed against its potential for unfair prejudice. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, relevance was historically defined as requiring both materiality—that the fact is of consequence to the action—and probative value. The restyled rule now presents relevance as a test rather than a definition. Not all relevant evidence is admissible; it may be excluded if prohibited by the Constitution, an Act of Congress, or court rules. For instance, relevant evidence can be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Character evidence, such as prior unrelated convictions, is often excluded because its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. To preserve an error for appeal, objections must be specific and timely; a mere objection on relevance grounds does not preserve an error based on a balancing test. Public policy also excludes certain relevant evidence, such as evidence of liability insurance, subsequent remedial measures, settlement offers, or plea negotiations, to avoid discouraging socially beneficial conduct. In Canada, the judiciary uses the term "probative" to mean "prove to be worthy," and the discretion to exclude evidence rests on weighing prejudicial value against probative value. In Australia, the uniform Evidence Act applies in most states and territories, where evidence is relevant if it could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue. Logical relevance requires only a logical connection, and even slight probative value suffices for admissibility, though evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Reader's Guide

Relevance serves as the fundamental touchstone for admissibility of evidence in common law systems. The concept ensures that only evidence with probative value—tending to prove or disprove a fact of consequence—is considered by the trier of fact. Public policy also excludes certain relevant evidence, such as liability insurance, subsequent remedial measures, settlement offers, and plea negotiations, to encourage socially beneficial behavior. The preservation of legal error for review requires specific and timely objections; a mere objection on relevance grounds may not preserve an error based on the balancing test. Across jurisdictions, the core principle remains that evidence must have a logical connection to the facts in issue, but courts retain discretion to exclude evidence that would unfairly prejudice the proceedings.

Did You Know?

• Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial value.
• The Advisory Committee notes state that relevancy is not an inherent characteristic of evidence but exists only as a relation between an item of evidence and a matter properly provable in the case.
• In Canada, the Supreme Court in R. v. Wray held that judges do not have discretion to exclude evidence because of how it was obtained, only for little probative value with great prejudicial effect.
• In Australia, evidence that is of only slight probative value will be admissible, just as at common law.

Gallery