Only relevant evidence is admissible at trial
Evidence is relevant if tends to prove or disprove a material fact in controversy. Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible at trial.
Any evidence that tends to prove or disprove a necessary element of a crime or civil wrong is almost always considered relevant.
Relevant evidence may still not be admissible if it violates some other rule of evidence or violates an important public policy:
- Evidence that tends to unnecessarily inflame the jury
- Evidence that is hearsay
- Evidence that is more prejudicial than probative
- Evidence that the court deems will delay the trial or confuse the jury
- Expert witness testimony that exceeds the scope of the expert’s training and experience
- Evidence that is found to be untrustworthy or has not been authenticated
