Chapter 1 - §2. When is evidence relevant

• Jurisdiction: United States

§2. When is evidence relevant

To be relevant, evidence must be both material and probative. See Evid. C. §210.

§2.1. Evidence must be material. Evidence is material if it relates to a fact or proposition in the case that is disputed. Evid. C. §210; see People v. Hardy (2018) 5 Cal.5th 56, 87; People v. Lopez (2d Dist.2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 484, 504. See "Disputed facts," ch. 1, §2.1.2.

Federal Comparison Under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FREs), evidence is relevant if (1) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and (2) the fact is of consequence in determining the action. FRE 401.

1. Material facts.

(1) Guilt phase. At the guilt phase of a criminal trial, material facts are generally those that prove the identity of the perpetrator, the elements of the charged offense, the elements of a defense, and the credibility of witnesses and hearsay declarants. See Evid. C. §210; People v. Sanchez (2019) 7 Cal.5th 14, 54; People v. Thompson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 303, 315 & n.13, disapproved on other grounds, People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 883. See "Witness credibility," ch. 1, §2.1.2(2). For evidence to be material, however, the fact sought to be proved does not have to be an ultimate fact in the proceeding. Thompson, 27 Cal.3d at 315 & n.13. Evidence can be material if it relates to an intermediate fact from which a disputed ultimate fact can be presumed or inferred. Id. at 315. Intermediate facts include such facts as motive, opportunity, plan, scheme, design, and modus operandi. Id. at 315 n.14; see, e.g., People v. Battle (2021) 11 Cal.5th 749, 799-800 (D's statements discussing his sword collection relevant to early versions of events minimizing his involvement in burglary and murders and assist jury in evaluating his shifting statements); People v. Flinner (2020) 10 Cal.5th 686, 738-39 (court correctly admitted evidence that murder victim might have been pregnant to show D's financial motive to have her killed); Sanchez, 7 Cal.5th at 54-55 (court properly admitted evidence of witness's sexual relationship with D; relationship was relevant to show witness's credibility and to disprove D's alibi); People v. Armstrong (2019) 6 Cal.5th 735, 787-88 (court may have erred in excluding victim's toxicology report; intoxication was relevant to corroborate D's testimony that victim's use of racial slurs inspired his actions rather than his own desire to rob, rape, or kill); People v. Johnson (4th Dist.2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 26, 62 (court properly admitted rap song written by victim; song's lyrics were relevant to show Ds' motive to seek revenge for victim's theft of drugs and affair with drug kingpin's girlfriend).

(2) Penalty phase. At the penalty phase of a criminal trial, the scope of material facts is much broader than the scope of relevant evidence at the guilt phase. At the guilt phase, relevant evidence is limited to those issues that determine guilt (e.g., elements of the charged offense, elements of a defense). At the penalty phase, however, the prosecution and defense are generally permitted to introduce all evidence that would be relevant to aggravate or mitigate a defendant's sentence. See People v. Cordova (2015) 62 Cal.4th 104, 141; see, e.g., People v. Johnsen (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1116, 1175 (three postmortem photographs of different parts of victim's body relevant against D who did not personally injure victim but aided and abetted in her murder). Thus, it is possible for evidence viewed as irrelevant or prejudicial during the guilt phase to be deemed relevant at the penalty phase. See People v. Nieves (2021) 11 Cal.5th 404, 511 (evidence of D's PET scan evidence of brain damage improperly excluded in penalty phase despite being unduly prejudicial in guilt phase); People v. Spencer (2018) 5 Cal.5th 642, 680; see, e.g., People v. Bell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 70, 105-06 (court did not abuse its discretion in admitting at penalty phase unredacted videotape showing suffering inflicted by D on victim); People v. Powell (2018) 5 Cal.5th 921, 960-61 (court did not err in admitting at penalty phase evidence of D's racist beliefs; tattoos and racial gang membership were relevant to explain motivation for and savagery of attack on victim); Hardy, 5 Cal.5th at 86-87 (court did not err in admitting only at penalty phase evidence that victim was intoxicated; evidence was irrelevant and lacked...