Irrelevant or Immaterial Questions

• Author: Ashley S. Lipson
• Pages: 143-160

6-1

Chapter 6

Irrelevant or Immaterial

Questions

§6.100 Introduction

§6.200 Quick Explanation

§6.300 General Legal Analysis

§6.400 Problems Pertaining to Criminal Cases

§6.500 Problems Pertaining to Civil Cases

§6.600 Detecting Irrelevancy

§6.700 Relevancy/Irrelevancy as a Matter of Law

§6.701 Character Evidence

§6.701(a) Prior Crimes

§6.702 Habit Evidence

§6.703 Subsequent Remedial Measures

§6.704 Evidence of Offer of Compromise

§6.705 Payment of Medical Bills

§6.706 Evidence of Pleas

§6.707 Liability Insurance Exclusion

§6.708 Sex Crimes

§6.800 Selected State Rules and Cases

§6.100 Is It Admissible? 6-2

§6.100 Introduction

To be admissible, a question must be both

relevant and material. A question is irrelevant if

it has no relationship to the issues of the case.

But being “relevant” is only half the battle; a

question must also be “material.” For, even

though a question may be relevant, it might still

be immaterial (and, therefore, objectionable) if

the information sought is not determinative of

the main issues in the case.

§6.200 Quick Explanation

A question is irrelevant if it has no bearing

whatsoever on the case. The test of relevance is a

very easy one to satisfy. A question will be consid-

ered relevant as long as it infers or suggests some-

thing about a disputed fact. “Materiality” is a term

that is often used synonymously with relevance,

but it is, in fact, a stricter standard. To be material,

the evidence must tend to prove or disprove a fact

that is critical to the outcome of the case.

EXAMPLES:

1. What is the defendant’s race, religion, or

national origin?

2. Was the defendant ever arrested before

for the same crime of which he is

charged today?

3. How safely did Maniac Morrey drive

one year after the subject accident?

Every part of the first question is both irrel-

evant and immaterial as a matter of law in every

jurisdiction of this country, unless, of course, the

case happens to involve discrimination or depor-

tation. As a general proposition, a person’s racial

background should never be used to imply guilt,

innocence, or liability.

The second question is immaterial because

an “arrest” by itself does not establish guilt.

As a matter of fact, a person is presumed to be

innocent of a crime until proven guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt.

The third question is relevant, but immate-

rial. In an auto negligence case, an answer to

the question might tend to show that Morrey

is an “all around” bad (or good) driver; that

would be relevant. But, as a general proposi-

tion, events that occur after the fact (i.e., after

the event which is the subject of the trial) are

immaterial. Caution in applying this proposi-

tion is urged; sometimes subsequent events

may be used to show prior occurrences. Here

is a subtle example—If a suspect, days after a

murder occurred, frantically erases fingerprints

on the murder weapon, stuffs the victim into a

suitcase, and then attempts to fly to Rio, those

subsequent acts might very well be deemed rel-

evant and material.

WHAT TO LOOK FOR:

Questions that do not lead to a solution or

answer to the key issues of the case.

OBJECT AND RESPOND

OBJECTION:

“Objection. The question is irrelevant

and immaterial.”

POTENTIAL RESPONSES TO

OBJECTION:

A. “The question is directly related to

_____________.”

B. [Oldest Trick-in-the-Book Response]

“I will link this up later.”

§6.300 General Legal

Analysis

Fed. R. Evid. 402 starts with the very broad

proposition that:

All relevant evidence is admissible, except

as otherwise provided by the Constitution

of the United States, by Act of Congress,

by these rules, or by other rules prescribed

by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory

authority. Evidence which is not relevant is

not admissible.

The rule simply states that relevant evidence,

not otherwise objectionable, is admissible. The

Federal Rules, in general, provide a very “liberal