Written by Attorney R. Peter Decato.
Trial attorneys often run into the phrase “relevant and material evidence.” Just like there is a
difference between “salt” and “pepper” and between “hot and cold”, there is also a difference
between relevant evidence and material evidence. The difference is subtle. Evidence is material if it is offered to prove or disprove a specific fact in issue.
Thus, evidence is material if it relates to one of the particular elements in the case. For example, in a driving while under the influence case, if evidence is being offered to show impairment, it is material. If evidence is not material, the other party may object to the use of the evidence on grounds that it would mislead the trier of fact. The evidence might also get the trier of fact into collateral issues and thereby prove a distraction to the resolution of the real issues in the case.
Immaterial evidence should be excluded. Some evidence may be admissible even if it does not bear directly on an issue of fact in the case. For this to happen, there has to be a relationship shown to the weight or credibility of the evidence. Thus, when a witness testifies their credibility, perception, memory and narration or communication are all material even though they are not directly related to an issue of fact.
Evidence is relevant as opposed to being material if it indicates a relationship between facts that increases the probability of the existence of the other. It must tend to prove or disporve a material fact in the case. Revelant evidence is viewed by its probative value. A trier of fact (judge or jury) determines the sufficiency or weight of the given evidence. In order for evidence to meet the relevance threshold, there must be merely some probative value. Relevant evidence used to prove or disprove an issue at trial is considered to be material evidence. Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. Not all material evidence is relevant because although the evidence might deal with the particular subject matter, it lacks probative value because it is dealing with a collateral issue unrelated to the elements of proof in a given case.
Posts
So... All relevant evidence is material, but not all material evidence is relevant? And all relevant evidence is probative of an issue to be determined by the fact-finder? Put another way, materiality is the more gross measure, of the two, of the value of a particular fact in determining a factual issue. Thus there is a hierarchical relationship between materiality and relevance.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was the other way around, relevant just helps to prove or disprove a theory (gives it weight) whereas material is determinant.. so its all relevant but maybe not material.. then again I may have it wrong.
ReplyDelete