Opinion ID: 901893
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Relevance vs. Admissibility

Text: [¶ 43.] Relevance and admissibility are separate concepts, though our precedent has at times discussed them in a similar manner. This precedent is imprecise. The relevance of evidence must be determined before considering whether or not evidence is admissible. Rule 401 presents the concept of relevance. SDCL 19-12-1 (Rule 401) provides: `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. [¶ 44.] After the relevance of evidence is determined, Rule 402 applies the concept of admissibility to that determination. All relevant evidence is admissible .... Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.  SDCL 19-12-2 (emphasis added). Other Rules further condition the admissibility of relevant evidence. See Rule 403 (Although relevant, evidence may be excluded ...) (emphasis added); SDCL 19-12-4 (Rule 404(a)) (Evidence of a person's character ... is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith ... except ...) (emphasis added); Rule 404(b) (Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes ...) (emphasis added). [¶ 45.] Considered together, these Rules suggest that relevant evidence is either admissible or inadmissible, depending on the applicability of the later Rules. However irrelevant evidence cannot be admissible. Our cases have not always been clear on this distinction and occasionally merge these concepts.