In California, the objection of relevance is based on the argument that evidence is not related to the issues in the case and does not help to prove or disprove any of the claims being made. Under the California Evidence Code, particularly Section 350, evidence is admissible only if it is relevant to the case at hand.
Definition of Relevance:
According to California Evidence Code Section 210, evidence is relevant if it has any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.
Standard for Relevance:
- Probative Value: The evidence must make a fact more or less likely.
- Materiality: The fact being proven or disproven must be of consequence to the case.
How to Object:
The formal objection in court is usually stated as: “Objection, relevance” or “Objection, this evidence is not relevant.”
When Relevance is Challenged:
A party might object to evidence based on relevance when:
- The evidence has no connection to the facts of the case.
- The evidence does not address a material fact or issue in the case.
- The evidence is being offered to prove something irrelevant to the legal issues.
Examples:
- A plaintiff in a personal injury case offers evidence of the defendant’s past criminal record unrelated to the incident at hand.
- In a contract dispute, one party introduces evidence of an unrelated business venture the opposing party was involved in 10 years ago.
Prejudicial vs. Probative Value:
Even if evidence is relevant, it can still be excluded if its probative value (the tendency to prove a fact) is substantially outweighed by the risk of prejudice, confusion, or wasting time (California Evidence Code Section 352). In this case, a party might object by saying: “Objection, 352, this evidence is more prejudicial than probative.”
Summary of Relevant Objections in California:
- Objection, relevance: The evidence is not relevant.
- Objection, 352: The evidence’s probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
