Under General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence, when is relevant evidence admissible?

• A. Relevant evidence is admissible only if it is uncontroversial.
• B. Relevant evidence is admissible unless the U.S. Constitution, these rules, or other Midlands rules provide otherwise; Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
• C. All relevant evidence is admitted without exception.
• D. The judge may exclude for any reason.

Answer: (B)

The key idea being tested is that relevance is the gatekeeper for admissibility: evidence must be relevant to a material fact to be admitted. If it is relevant, it is admissible unless a higher rule says otherwise—whether from the Constitution, these rules, or other Midlands rules. Irrelevant evidence, by contrast, is not admissible. In practice, this means a piece of evidence can be highly probative but still be kept out if some rule excludes it (for example, due to privilege, hearsay, or a balancing decision under Rule 403 about prejudice, confusion, or waste of time). The other options go too far or too little: relevance does not require the evidence to be uncontroversial; not all relevant evidence is admitted without exception because other rules can bar it; and a judge cannot exclude for any reason—exclusion must be grounded in a rule or a recognized balancing standard.