Relevancy — Rules 401, 402, and 403

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

Relevancy — Rules 401, 402, and 403

SUMMARY OF RULES 401, 402, and 403

Rule 401 — Definition of Relevant Evidence

• Relevant evidence has the tendency to make the existence of a fact of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Rule 402 — Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible

• All relevant evidence is admissible, unless otherwise excepted by the U.S. Constitution, Colorado Constitution, CRE, or C.R.S.
• Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible.

Rule 403 — Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

• Relevant evidence may be excluded on the basis of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

LEGAL AUTHORITIES

• The threshold determination of admissibility is relevance. Vialpando v. People, 727 P.2d 1090 (Colo. 1986).

• The balancing test required by CRE 403 contemplates five factors in determining whether the probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice: (1) the importance of the fact of consequence for which the evidence is offered; (2) the strength and length of the inferences necessary to establish the fact of consequence; (3) the availability of alternative means of proof; (4) whether the fact of consequence for which the evidence is offered is being disputed; and (5) the potential effectiveness of a limiting instruction. Vialpando v. People, 727 P.2d 1090 (Colo. 1986).

• The trial court has broad discretion to determine relevancy, probative value, and prejudicial impact. E-470 Public Highway Authority v. 455 Co., 3 P.3d 18 (Colo. 2000); KN Energy, Inc. v. Great Western Sugar Co., 698 P.2d 769 (Colo. 1985).

• The CRE 403 standard for admissibility at trial does not apply to the standards of discovery pursuant to C.R.C.P. 26, which permits discovery of all information that may lead to admissible evidence. Leaffer v. Zarlengo, 44 P.3d 1072 (Colo. 2002).

• A photograph may generally be admitted when its subject matter may be introduced into evidence in words. People v. Loscutoff, 661 P.2d 274 (Colo. 1983).

• Appellate review of relevancy is limited because the appellate court must assume maximum probative value and balance minimum unfair prejudice. People v. Dist. Court, 785 P.2d 141 (Colo. 1990).

• Cumulative evidence of a party's underemployment may be excluded under CRE 403. In re Marriage of...