When relevance depends on whether a fact exists, what must occur before the court can admit the evidence?

• A. The court must exclude the evidence until the fact is proven
• B. The court must admit the proposed evidence with no conditions
• C. The court may admit the proposed evidence on the condition that the proof be introduced later
• D. The court may admit the proposed evidence only after the fact is established

Answer: (C)

When relevance depends on whether a separate fact exists, that relevance is treated as conditional. The court can admit the evidence on the condition that the proof of that fact will be introduced later. This allows the jury to consider the evidence for its possible significance, while keeping the requirement that the conditioning fact actually be proven at or before it will be used for the relevance must be satisfied.

For example, imagine the evidence would only be relevant if a particular document is authentic, which in turn depends on proving a signer’s identity. The court can allow the document in, with the understanding that the signer’s existence or authentication will be established later. If that proof never comes in, the evidence may not be used for that purpose.

So the best approach is conditional admission: the court admits the proposed evidence on the condition that the proof of the fact exists will be introduced later.