Which statement best describes the admissibility of evidence that is not relevant except for proving a necessary element?

Which statement best describes the admissibility of evidence that is not relevant except for proving a necessary element?

• A. It is admissible because it helps prove an element.
• B. It is not admissible because it fails FRE 401 relevance.
• C. It is admissible if the other party requests it.
• D. It is admissible if the court finds it probative and balances prejudice.

Answer: (B)

The idea being tested is relevance under FRE 401. Evidence is admissible if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable, and that fact must be one of consequence in determining the action. An element of the claim is a fact in issue, so evidence that tends to prove that element is relevant. If the only purpose of the evidence is to establish that essential element, it still helps prove a fact in issue, and thus is admissible (subject to any other exclusions like Rule 403 for prejudice). Saying it’s not admissible because it fails FRE 401 is incorrect because the element itself is a fact in issue, so proving it via the evidence satisfies relevance. The notion that admissibility depends on the other party’s request is not how evidentiary rules operate. And while balancing under Rule 403 is a possible consideration, it isn’t the threshold requirement for admissibility; relevance must first be shown.

The idea being tested is relevance under FRE 401. Evidence is admissible if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable, and that fact must be one of consequence in determining the action. An element of the claim is a fact in issue, so evidence that tends to prove that element is relevant. If the only purpose of the evidence is to establish that essential element, it still helps prove a fact in issue, and thus is admissible (subject to any other exclusions like Rule 403 for prejudice).

Saying it’s not admissible because it fails FRE 401 is incorrect because the element itself is a fact in issue, so proving it via the evidence satisfies relevance. The notion that admissibility depends on the other party’s request is not how evidentiary rules operate. And while balancing under Rule 403 is a possible consideration, it isn’t the threshold requirement for admissibility; relevance must first be shown.