Opinion ID: 2321244
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standard of Review for Admissibility of Evidence

Text: Trial judges generally have wide discretion when weighing the relevancy of evidence. Young v. State, 370 Md. 686, 720, 806 A.2d 233, 253 (2002) (Trial courts have wide discretion in determining the relevance of evidence.); accord Schmitt, 140 Md.App. at 17, 779 A.2d at 1013 (noting that with respect to evidentiary rulings on admissibility generally and rulings with respect to relevance specifically, the trial judge is vested with wide, wide discretion). While trial judges are vested with discretion in weighing relevancy in light of unfairness or efficiency considerations, trial judges do not have discretion to admit irrelevant evidence. See Pearson v. State, 182 Md. 1, 13, 31 A.2d 624, 629 (1943) (noting that the rule [of discretion] will not be extended to facts obviously irrelevant as well as prejudicial to the defendant). In Ruffin Hotel Corp. of Md. v. Gasper, 418 Md. 594, 17 A.3d 676 (2011), we explained the standards by which we review the admission, or exclusion, of evidence, stating: It is frequently stated that the issue of whether a particular item of evidence should be admitted or excluded is committed to the considerable and sound discretion of the trial court, and that the abuse of discretion standard of review is applicable to the trial court's determination of relevancy. See e.g. Merzbacher v. State, 346 Md. 391, 404-05, 697 A.2d 432, 439 (1997). Maryland Rule 5-402, however, makes it clear that the trial court does not have discretion to admit irrelevant evidence. . . . [T]he de novo standard of review is applicable to the trial judge's conclusion of law that the evidence at issue is or is not of consequence to the determination of the action. Parker v. State, 408 Md. 428, 437, 970 A.2d 320, 325 (2009), (citations omitted) (quoting J.L. Matthews, Inc. v. Md.-Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n, 368 Md. 71, 92, 792 A.2d 288, 300 (2002)). Ruffin, 418 Md. at 619, 17 A.3d at 690-91. Thus, we must consider first, whether the evidence is legally relevant, and, if relevant, then whether the evidence is inadmissible because its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, or other countervailing concerns as outlined in Maryland Rule 5-403. See Thomas v. State, 372 Md. 342, 350, 812 A.2d 1050, 1055 (2002) ( Thomas I ) (The fundamental test in assessing admissibility is relevance.). During the first consideration, we test for legal error, while the second consideration requires review of the trial judge's discretionary weighing and is thus tested for abuse of that discretion. See J.L. Matthews, 368 Md. at 92, 792 A.2d at 300, n. 18 (Although at first glance such a determination may appear to be a legal conclusion, at its core it is based on a trial judge's independent weighing of the probative value of the evidence against its harmful effects. As such, it is subject to the abuse of discretion standard.).