Rule 402 Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by the Constitution of Arizona or by applicable statutes or rules. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.

Comment

Evidence that meets the definition of relevancy established in Rule 401 is admissible unless the United States Constitution, the Arizona Constitution, or an applicable statute or rule precludes its admission.[1] Assuming the party opposing the introduction of the evidence in question makes the proper objections, the trial court must go through the following steps. If the trial court determines that the evidence does not meet the definition of relevancy established in Rule 401, the evidence is irrelevant and not admissible, and the inquiry ceases. If the trial court determines that the evidence is relevant, the trial court must then determine whether some other specific provision of the federal or state constitution, the state statutes, or the state rules of procedure or evidence excludes the evidence. Finally, if the party opposing the evidence objects on the basis of Rule 403, the trial court must determine whether, even though the evidence has satisfied all the above tests, it should nonetheless be excluded for one or more of the reasons given in Rule 403. If the evidence passes all the above tests, the trial court should admit it; if it fails any of the tests, the trial court should exclude it.

An example of a situation where evidence is relevant but another provision precludes its admission would be a party's statement to their attorney, which very well could be relevant, but would be privileged under Rule 501. Thus, because Rule 501 precludes this evidence, it does not matter how relevant it is, it is still inadmissible. Contrasted with this is the situation where evidence that is admissible for one purpose, but is not admissible for another purpose. For example, the fact that a party and a witness are members of the same club, organization, or gang, which might not be admissible under Rule 608(b) as a specific instance of conduct showing the witness's character for truthfulness, but could be admissible under Rule 401 as relevant to show the witness's motive or bias toward the party. In such a situation, the fact that evidence is inadmissible for one purpose (Rule 608(b)) does not preclude its admission for another purpose (Rule 401).[2] The difference between these two examples is that in the first, the evidence is precluded by some provision (Rule 501), while in the second the evidence merely fails to satisfy the requirements of some provision (Rule 608(b)). In the second example, the evidence of club, organization, or gang membership would be admissible, but the party against whom it was admitted would be entitled to a limiting instruction under Rule 105.

Cases

402.010 All relevant evidence is admissible unless a constitutional provision, statute, or rule precludes its admission.

State v. Hensley,142 Ariz. 598, 691 P.2d 689 (1984) (witness's testimony about defendant's possession of gun and his statements about shooting was admissible).

Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp.,182 Ariz. 26, 893 P.2d 26 (Ct. App. 1994) (even though conclusion in federal report might have been admissible under Rule 703 or Rule 803(8), because federal statute precluded its admission, it was not admissible).

402.020 Evidence should be received if it is admissible for any purpose, notwithstanding the fact that it may be inadmissible for other purposes.

Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel,149 Ariz. 442, 719 P.2d 1058 (1986) (Rules 105 and 403 provide methods of protecting party from misuse of evidence that is admissible for some purposes but inadmissible for others).

State v. Lawson,144 Ariz. 547, 698 P.2d 1266 (1985) (even though co-defendant's statements and evidence about co-defendant were not relevant to defendant's guilt or innocence, they were relevant to co-defendant's guilt or innocence and thus were admissible).

Rhue v. Dawson,173 Ariz. 220, 841 P.2d 215 (Ct. App. 1992) (in suit claiming wrongful termination of partnership agreement, evidence of defendant's alcoholism and mood swings was relevant because it could affect his credibility and memory loss and thus was admissible, even though it might not have been admissible for some other purposes).

402.030 The test for admissibility of evidence is not different for different parties.

State ex rel. Collins v. Seidel (Deason),142 Ariz. 587, 691 P.2d 678 (1984) (Constitution gives defendant right to present evidence, but does not relieve defendant of burden of meeting evidentiary standards for all parties).

402.040 Even though the parties stipulate that a certain fact exists and is true, as long as that evidence is relevant it is admissible; the fact that the parties have so stipulated does not preclude a party from introducing that evidence for the jurors to consider.

State v. Rebollosa,177 Ariz. 399, 868 P.2d 982 (Ct. App. 1993) (in prosecution for DUI on suspended license, parties stipulated defendant was aware his license was revoked at time of his arrest; because that was element of offense and was relevant to state's case, state had right to present that evidence to jurors even though parties had stipulated).

402.050 If evidence does not affect the probability of a fact of consequence in the litigation, it is not relevant and therefore is not admissible.

State v. Walden,183 Ariz. 595, 905 P.2d 974 (1995) (because trial court allowed defendant to ask victim when and how much beer she had consumed, and how it affected her, fact that she had gone on "beer run" was not relevant).

State v. Herrera (Jr.),176 Ariz. 21, 859 P.2d 131 (1993) (because state's theory was that defendant was guilty as accomplice, it therefore did not matter whether defendant's father or brother fired the shot, thus other brother's statement that father shot victim was not relevant and trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit statement).

State v. Herrera (Mickel),174 Ariz. 387, 850 P.2d 100 (1993) (because trial court convicted defendant of felony murder and acquitted him of premeditated murder, his brother's statement that father shot victim was not relevant).

State v. Amaya-Ruiz,166 Ariz. 152, 800 P.2d 1260 (1990) (because defendant's proposed evidence was of general political situation in El Salvador and did not involve defendant's own experiences in El Salvador, trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining this evidence was not relevant to question of voluntariness of defendant's confession).

State v. Romanosky,162 Ariz. 217, 782 P.2d 693 (1989) (reason for and circumstances of defendant's arrest were not relevant, thus trial court erred in admitting this evidence).

State v. Rankovich,159 Ariz. 116, 765 P.2d 518 (1988) (evidence about person's ethnic background generally irrelevant).

Bradshaw v. State Farm Ins. Co.,157 Ariz. 411, 758 P.2d 1313 (1988) (there was no indication defendant insurance company ever relied on A.R.S. Sec. 28-624, which details rights and duties of driver of emergency vehicle; therefore, in deciding whether to bring wrongful death action for death of its insured, this statute was not relevant to issues in malicious prosecution litigation).

State v. Rossi,146 Ariz. 359, 706 P.2d 371 (1985) (defendant's request for live lineup came 7 months after defendant's arrest during which time he had radically changed his appearance, so live lineup would not have been relevant; thus asking witness why victim had not been asked to pick defendant out of live lineup was not relevant).

State v. Williams,144 Ariz. 433, 698 P.2d 678 (1985) (in light of evidence that witnesses saw defendant run from store and throw gun away, evidence...