Which pair correctly describes the two relevance tests in Midlands Rules?

Which pair correctly describes the two relevance tests in Midlands Rules?

• A. 401(a) The evidence has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable; 401(b) The fact is of consequence in determining the action.
• B. 401(a) The fact is of consequence; 401(b) The evidence has any tendency.
• C. 401(a) The evidence must prove beyond reasonable doubt; 401(b) The fact must be directly in issue.
• D. 401(a) The evidence is admissible if it is highly probative; 401(b) The court decides.

Answer: (A)

Relevance in Midlands Rules rests on two ideas: probative value and materiality. An item of evidence must have any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence—that’s the probative value part. It also must concern a fact that is of consequence in determining the action—that’s materiality. The paired statements in the correct option capture these two requirements exactly: the evidence need only have any tendency to affect the probability of a fact, and that fact must be of consequence in deciding the action. The other choices mix up or replace these concepts—such as tying relevance to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to a fact being directly in issue, to being highly probative, or to a vague court decision—none of which state the standard for relevance correctly.

Relevance in Midlands Rules rests on two ideas: probative value and materiality. An item of evidence must have any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence—that’s the probative value part. It also must concern a fact that is of consequence in determining the action—that’s materiality. The paired statements in the correct option capture these two requirements exactly: the evidence need only have any tendency to affect the probability of a fact, and that fact must be of consequence in deciding the action. The other choices mix up or replace these concepts—such as tying relevance to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to a fact being directly in issue, to being highly probative, or to a vague court decision—none of which state the standard for relevance correctly.