FAQ - Rules of Evidence - Relevancy

We get lots of questions about what evidence is, what type of information can be used against a person in a trial, and why certain information can’t be used at a trial. Each case is different and none of what follows should be considered to be applicable in all cases, but in this post and over the coming few weeks, we’re going to cover some common rules of evidence and some examples of how they might apply.

The first question we’re going to cover: is there a general rule about what information can be prevented at my trial?

The answer: Yes. That rule is relevancy. In Louisiana, relevancy is defined in the Code of Evidence Article 401. It says that relevant information is “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.” In non-lawyer-speak, that basically means that a party can present any information that will make the trier of fact (jury or the judge, whoever is hearing the case) believe it is more or less likely that that element of the case (crime, defense, or an element of a civil case) occurred.

Examples of relevant evidence:

(*Please note that other rules of evidence may impact the admissibility of the evidence described below, we are simply providing examples for the purpose of relevancy here*)

• A defendant is being tried for simple battery after striking the victim, but witnesses are available who can testify that the victim and the defendant were members of a boxing team and they were engaged in a bout;

• An alleged victim of a theft gave statements to the defendant on a recorded telephone line that the defendant had permission to use his credit card; or

• A witness to a car accident saw the driver of the vehicle who struck the plaintiff tail-gating the plaintiff for several minutes before rear-ending the plaintiff’s vehicle at a red light.

In general, relevant evidence is admissible (meaning: able to be presented at trial) and irrelevant evidence is not admissible. The following is an example of evidence that would likely be found to be irrelevant: the fact that the defendant had been seen drunk at a party (not driving) a month before her arrest for driving while intoxicated.

Even relevant evidence may not be admissible in all cases. A court may decide that the evidence, although relevant, should be excluded because its probative value (its value as proof of something) is outweighed by:

1. the danger of unfair prejudice;

2. confusion of the issues;

3. misleading the jury; or

4. undue delay or waste of time.

Some examples:

• Evidence that is relevant but that would so poison the minds of the jury against one of the parties that it should not be presented to them;

• Evidence that is relevant, but that would only serve to make the case more complicated than necessary to decide, and so much more complicated that it would risk the reliability of the verdict;

• Evidence that would cause the jury to infer information or facts that are not true; or

• Evidence in cases where more than one witness can testify to the same information allowing them all to testify would be overly burdensome to the trial, even though all of their testimony is relevant.

Even if none of the above exceptions applies, relevant evidence may still not be admissible because another rule of evidence may apply. Stay tuned next week when we talk about one of those specific exceptions: character evidence.

If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges or has been involved in an accident and has questions about seeking legal representation, you can call our office at (318) 459-9111.