Also known as: immaterial evidences · irrelevant evidence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Evidence offered to prove a fact that is not of consequence in determining the action. Such evidence fails the threshold test for admission because it is directed to an issue outside the case.
Professor Alan Reyes sued Lakeside University for wrongful termination after the school cited falsified research data. The university offered evidence of Reyes's preference for controversial political novels to suggest he held extreme views justifying dismissal. The court excluded the evidence because the novels bore no connection to whether Reyes had falsified data or whether the stated reason was pretext.
In a bench trial the prosecutor asked an expert whether a DNA profile from semen matched the defendant's profile. The expert answered by assuming the profile came from the victim's swabs. The court treated the assumption as a mere premise rather than proof of the fact asserted, rendering the testimony immaterial on the chain-of-custody issue.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
After a capital conviction the state introduced testimony about the victim's personal qualities and the family's loss. The defendant objected that the evidence was immaterial to any aggravating factor. The court admitted the evidence because it rebutted mitigating evidence and supplied context for the sentencer's decision on punishment.
A defendant erected a sign after consulting the state's attorney about the applicable penal statute. At trial the defendant sought to introduce the consultation to negate criminal intent. The court excluded the evidence because advice about the law did not alter the defendant's knowledge of the statute or the intentional nature of the act.
Evidence is immaterial when it has no tendency to make any fact of consequence more or less probable. The court therefore excludes it outright under Rule 402 without reaching questions of prejudice or other exclusions.
Supporting sources
No. Evidence satisfies the materiality threshold if it has any tendency, however slight, to affect the probability of a consequential fact. Courts reject arguments that nondispositive evidence is automatically immaterial.
Supporting sources
Yes. Evidence offered solely to show general character or temperament fails the materiality test when it bears no logical connection to a disputed issue such as breach, causation, or intent in the case at hand.
Supporting sources
Immaterial evidence never clears the initial relevance gate and is excluded automatically. Rule 403 applies only after evidence is found material and then balances its probative value against risks such as unfair prejudice.
Supporting sources
…Cellmark’s profile was accurate, Lambatos’ testimony would be irrelevant, but the Confrontation Clause bars not the admission of irrelevant evidence, but the admission of testimonial statements by declarants who are not subject to cross-examination. Here, the trial record does not lack admissible evidence with respect to the source of…