Which statement best describes Irrelevant Evidence?

Which statement best describes Irrelevant Evidence?

• A. It does not tend to make any fact in issue more or less probable.
• B. It is always admissible in any case.
• C. It is never allowed if it relates to a crime.
• D. It is always excluded if it is emotional testimony.

Answer: (A)

Relevance means evidence must tend to prove or disprove a fact in issue. Irrelevant evidence is defined as evidence that does not tend to make any fact in issue more or less probable, so it has no meaningful probative value. Because it doesn’t helps the jury decide the case, such evidence is excluded. The other statements misstate the rule: evidence about a crime can be admissible if it helps establish a relevant fact, and emotional testimony isn’t automatically excluded—its admissibility depends on whether its probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect.

Relevance means evidence must tend to prove or disprove a fact in issue. Irrelevant evidence is defined as evidence that does not tend to make any fact in issue more or less probable, so it has no meaningful probative value. Because it doesn’t helps the jury decide the case, such evidence is excluded. The other statements misstate the rule: evidence about a crime can be admissible if it helps establish a relevant fact, and emotional testimony isn’t automatically excluded—its admissibility depends on whether its probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect.