Which statement defines the 'fact is of consequence in determining the action' criterion for relevance?

• A. The fact must be legally essential to win the case.
• B. The fact must be of consequence in determining the action.
• C. The fact must be proven by overwhelming evidence.
• D. The fact must be the sole determinant of the outcome.

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that relevance hinges on probative value: a fact is relevant if it has any tendency to make a material fact in the case more or less probable. The phrase “of consequence in determining the action” captures this: the fact must matter to the decision, by affecting the likelihood of a fact that is in issue. It doesn’t have to be the sole or decisive factor, and it doesn’t have to be proven beyond all doubt.

So the statement that fits best is that a fact is relevant if it is of consequence in determining the action. This aligns with the standard notion that relevance is about whether the evidence helps prove or disprove a fact that matters to the outcome. The other options set an unnecessarily strict or incorrect standard: relevance isn’t about being legally essential to win, nor about overwhelming proof, nor about being the sole determinant of the outcome.