Rule 401. Definition of "relevant Evidence"

• Library: South Carolina Evidence Annotated (SCBar) (2023 Ed.)

Rule 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence"

"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Note:

This rule is identical to the federal rule and is consistent with South Carolina law. State v. Alexander, 303 S.C. 377, 401 S.E.2d 146 (1991); State v. Schmidt, 288 S.C. 301, 342 S.E.2d 401 (1986).

Annotations Rule 401

401

Appeal

"Determinations of relevance are largely within the trial court's discretion and its decision to either admit or reject evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is an abuse of such discretion amounting to an error of law to the prejudice of the appellant's rights." Burbach v. Investors Management Corp. International, 326 S.C. 492, 484 S.E.2d 119, 123 (Ct. App. 1996) (dissent, Goolsby).

Bad Act Analysis

"In a trio of cases, this Court has been asked to reconsider the reach of the common scheme or plan exception to Rule 404(b), SCRE, particularly as it pertains to criminal sexual conduct cases and our decision in State v. Wallace, 384 S.C. 428, 683 S.E.2d 275 (2009). Today, in the first of the three opinions, we overrule Wallace and clarify the requirements to satisfy the common scheme or plan exception. See State v. Perry, 430 S.C. 24, 842 S.E.2d 654 (2020). In the second of the three opinions, using the new Perry framework, we affirm a pastor's criminal sexual conduct conviction in a case where the abuse of the victims was done in a method so unusual as to be unique. See State v. Durant, 430 S.C. 98, 844 S.E.2d 49 (2020); see also State v. McClellan, 283 S.C. 389, 323 S.E.2d 772 (1984). Here, in the third of the three opinions, we reconfirm the continued viability of the common scheme or plan exception." State v. Cotton, 430 S.C. 112, 113, 844 S.E.2d 56, 57 (2020), reh'g denied (July 8, 2020).

For the first time in our jurisprudence, contrary to over eighty years of interpretation of Rule 404(b) and its pre-Rules predecessor Lyle , the Court stated, "A close degree of similarity establishes the required connection between the two acts and no further 'connection' must be shown for admissibility." State v. Perry, 430 S.C. 24, 35-36, 842 S.E.2d 654, 660 (2020), reh'g denied (June 10, 2020).

"The process of analyzing [prior] bad act evidence begins with Rule 401, SCRE." If the circuit court determines the prior bad acts evidence is relevant, it "must then determine whether the bad act evidence fits within an exception of Rule 404(b)." State v. King, 416 S.C. 92, 109, 784 S.E.2d 252, 261 (Ct. App. 2016).

Computer-Generated Evidence

A computer animation is admissible if it is: 1) authentic under Rule 901, SCRE; 2) relevant under Rules 401 and 402, SCRE; 3) a fair and accurate representation of the evidence; and 4) more probative than prejudicial under Rule 403, SCRE. Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 529 S.E.2d 528 (2000). When an animation is admitted, the trial court is to give a cautionary instruction that the video represents only a recreation of one party's version of events, and may call attention to any assumptions upon which the recreation is based. Webb v. CSX, 364 S.C. 639, 654, 615 S.E.2d 440, 448 (2005).

"[A]n animation is relevant when it has a direct bearing upon and tends to establish or make more or less probable the matter in controversy. Rules 401-402, SCRE; An animation may be relevant when it relates to other admissible, material evidence and it will aid the trier of fact in understanding the related evidence. In this case, the animation was relevant because it was related to the testimony of several witnesses about the accident. It would have aided the jury in understanding that testimony, provided it did not have to be excluded on other grounds. Next, the animation must be a fair and accurate representation of the evidence to which it relates. It need not be exact in every detail, but the important elements must be identical or very similar to the scene as described in other testimony and evidence presented by the animation's proponent in order to constitute a fair and accurate representation. In an animation reconstructing a vehicle accident, for instance, the animation must be technically correct on details such as distance, terrain, relative speed, path of travel, and surroundings. The fact the animation is inconsistent with testimony or evidence presented by the opposing party should not necessarily lead to its exclusion, provided it fairly and accurately portrays the proponent's version of events." Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 386, 529 S.E.2d 528, 537 (2000).

Relevant

"'Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of...