This definition implies the requirement that evidence be both substantial (“relevant to the decision on the act”) and conclusive (“tend to establish the existence of a [material] fact. more likely or less likely than it would be without the evidence”). [2] However, the revised section 401 separates these traditional concepts to make the rule clearer and easier to understand. [3] The amended wording essentially rewrites the rule as a test rather than a definition of relevance: the common law relevance of evidence is the tendency of a particular piece of evidence to prove or refute one of the legal elements of the case, or to have probative value in making one of the elements of the case more likely or not. Evidence is a term used in law to refer to “tends to prove.” [1] Evidence “seeks the truth.” In general, evidence that is inconclusive (that does not tend to prove the proposal for which it is presented) is inadmissible and the rules of evidence allow it to be excluded from the proceedings or deleted from the record “if opposing counsel objects”. [1] A balancing test may come into play when the value of the evidence must be weighed against its adverse nature. The first step in determining relevance, therefore, is to determine the “duly provable” issue. As Professor James explained in a highly regarded article, “To discover the relevance of an available piece of evidence, one must first determine to which thesis it is intended to be relevant.” [6] The restrictions on evidence that may be introduced are intended to prevent the court and jury from making decisions based on factors other than those required by law. Character evidence presents a particularly high risk of harm because it focuses on a person`s character traits rather than on the series of facts and events that the parties must prove. However, character evidence has its place, especially when used to refute contradictory evidence. Ultimately, the decision to admit or exclude evidence rests with the court, which often uses the threat of unjust prejudice as a guide. The Committee`s commentary on section 401 states that “relevance is not an intrinsic characteristic of evidence, but exists only as a relationship between evidence and facts that can be duly proved in a case.” That is, only the relationship of an object to what a party wants to prove in the process makes it relevant.
In order to obtain errors of law for the review, objections must be raised. [12] Objections are often raised to the introduction of evidence on the basis of relevance. However, the rules and statements show that the relevant evidence includes a significant portion of the evidence generally presented. Since objections must be specific and appropriate, a simple objection based on relevance can easily prevent the review of errors of law in appeal proceedings. [12] [13] In particular, an objection based on “relevance” does not preserve error under Rule 403. [13] Cases where no specific and timely objection is raised are sometimes referred to as “bad history” cases, as errors made by the lower court may not be reviewed on appeal. The scheme of Chapter 3 of the Act deals with the admissibility of evidence. [26] Relevant evidence is generally admissible and irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.
[26] Evidence is relevant when it is evidence that, if accepted, could rationally influence (directly or indirectly) the assessment of the likelihood of a fact at issue in the proceeding. [27] Since the relevant evidence is likely to influence the assessment of the likelihood of the existence of a disputed fact, it is “conclusive”. [28] This provision is referred to as logical relevance. Logical relevance presupposes only that the evidence has a logical connection to the facts in question. But neither section 55 nor section 56 of the Act requires evidence to be conclusive to a certain extent in order to be admissible. Evidence that has only some probative value, however weak, will be admissible at common law. [29] Therefore, the evidence is relevant or not, and if the evidence is not relevant, no further question arises as to its admissibility. [30] However, logical relevance is not sufficient to establish the potential admissibility of the evidence and it is always possible that the evidence may be inadmissible. This conclusion is referred to as “legal relevance” as opposed to logical relevance and represents a requirement for discretionary (but not mandatory) exclusion when its probative value is far outweighed by the risk that the evidence may be unduly prejudicial. [31] Once the legal relevance of the evidence has been established, the principles of exclusion and the exceptions to these principles must also be considered.
[32] In deciding whether relevant evidence should always be excluded, the court is careful to focus on the legal issues of the case and avoid the distractions of certain evidence. Reliability takes into account the probative value of the evidence (legal relevance) and not the ability of the evidence to influence the likelihood of the existence of a disputed fact (logical relevance). [33] Parties often wish to provide evidence of other crimes, injustices or acts committed by the parties. This cannot be used as evidence of character when it is proposed to show that the person acted in accordance with this character trait on a particular occasion. [x] For example, a plaintiff bringing an action for negligence may want to prove in a separate action that the defendant acted negligently three years ago. The plaintiff may argue that this evidence is relevant because this earlier case was a case of negligence that was very similar to this case. The plaintiff seeks to show that the defendant has the trait of negligence and therefore acted negligently on the occasion at issue in this case. This type of evidence is inadmissible because it violates the fundamental rule against character proof. All of these types of character evidence are admissible, if the behaviour reaches the level of a “habit, routine or practice”, then the evidence is admissible in itself. Evidence that a person has a habit, routine or practice can be used to show that the person acted in accordance with that habit on a particular occasion.
[xiii] For example, if someone goes running on the same track every morning at 5:00 a.m., they have developed a habit.