When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant – In law, a fact is said to be relevant if it tends to make the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue more or less probable. However, there are certain facts which are not otherwise relevant, but may become relevant in certain circumstances.
One way in which facts not otherwise relevant may become relevant is if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact. For example, if the question at issue is whether a person was in a certain place at a certain time, and it is shown that the person was in a different place at that time, this would be relevant evidence, even though the fact that the person was in the different place would not otherwise be relevant. When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant.
Another way in which facts not otherwise relevant may become relevant is if they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable. For example, if the question at issue is whether a person committed a crime, and it is shown that the person had a motive for committing the crime, this would be relevant evidence, even though the fact that the person had a motive would not otherwise be relevant.
Here are some specific examples of when facts not otherwise relevant may become relevant:
- Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct. Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. For example, if the question at issue is whether a person committed a murder, the fact that the person purchased a murder weapon shortly before the murder would be relevant evidence, even though the fact that the person purchased the weapon would not otherwise be relevant.
- Opinion of experts. Facts, not otherwise relevant, are relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinion of experts, when such opinions are relevant. For example, if the question at issue is whether a person was insane at the time of a crime, the opinion of an expert psychiatrist would be relevant evidence. The psychiatrist could also testify to facts which support or are inconsistent with their opinion, such as the person’s family history of mental illness or their behavior in the days leading up to the crime.
- Identity. Facts, not otherwise relevant, are relevant if they tend to establish the identity of any person or thing. For example, if the question at issue is whether a particular person was the one who committed a crime, the fact that the person has a distinctive tattoo would be relevant evidence, even though the fact that the person has the tattoo would not otherwise be relevant.
- Existence of a course of conduct. Facts, not otherwise relevant, are relevant if they tend to prove the existence of any course of conduct or habit. For example, if the question at issue is whether a person was speeding at the time of an accident, the fact that the person has been caught speeding on multiple occasions in the past would be relevant evidence, even though the fact that the person has been caught speeding in the past would not otherwise be relevant.
It is important to note that the court has discretion to decide whether a fact not otherwise relevant is relevant in a particular case. The court will consider the facts of the case and the purpose of the evidence in making its decision.
Here is an example of a case When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant:
In the case of R v Smith (1914), the defendant was charged with the murder of his wife. The prosecution alleged that the defendant had poisoned his wife with arsenic. The prosecution presented evidence that the defendant had purchased arsenic shortly before his wife’s death. The defense objected to the evidence on the grounds that it was not relevant. However, the court held that the evidence was relevant, as it showed that the defendant had the means to commit the crime. When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant.
Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales (1894): In this case, the defendant was charged with the murder of his three-year-old daughter. The prosecution alleged that the defendant had drowned his daughter in a bathtub. The prosecution presented evidence that the defendant had previously threatened to kill his daughter. The defense objected to the evidence on the grounds that it was not relevant. However, the court held that the evidence was relevant, as it showed that the defendant had a motive for committing the crime. When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant.
R v Hall (1965): In this case, the defendant was charged with breaking into a house and stealing money. The prosecution alleged that the defendant had broken into the house through a window. The prosecution presented evidence that the defendant had a distinctive scar on his left hand. The defense objected to the evidence on the grounds that it was not relevant. However, the court held that the evidence was relevant, as it could be used to identify the defendant as the person who had broken into the house. When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant.
R v Wright (1997): In this case, the defendant was charged with dealing drugs. The prosecution alleged that the defendant had been dealing drugs for a number of years. The prosecution presented evidence that the defendant had been caught with drugs on multiple occasions in the past. The defense objected to the evidence on the grounds that it was not relevant. However, the court held that the evidence was relevant, as it showed that the defendant had a course of conduct of dealing drugs.
These cases show that facts which are not otherwise relevant may become relevant if they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable. The court has discretion to decide whether a fact not otherwise relevant is relevant in a particular case. The court will consider the facts of the case and the purpose of the evidence in making its decision.
A plea of alibi is a criminal defense in which the defendant claims that they were not at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. This defense can be very effective, but it is important to have strong evidence to support it.
In the cases of R v Smith, Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales, R v Hall, and R v Wright, a plea of alibi would not be likely to be successful. This is because the prosecution has evidence that places the defendant at or near the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. For example, in R v Smith, the defendant purchased arsenic shortly before his wife’s death. This suggests that he was planning to murder her. In Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales, the defendant had previously threatened to kill his daughter. This suggests that he had a motive for killing her. In R v Hall, the defendant had a distinctive scar on his left hand. This suggests that he could be identified as the person who broke into the house. In R v Wright, the defendant had been caught with drugs on multiple occasions in the past. This suggests that he had a course of conduct of dealing drugs.
However, there may be cases where a plea of alibi could be successful, even in the face of strong evidence from the prosecution. For example, if the defendant has witnesses who can testify that they saw the defendant at a different location at the time of the crime, this could be strong evidence to support an alibi defense. Additionally, if the defendant has evidence that the prosecution’s witnesses are mistaken or unreliable, this could also help to support an alibi defense.
Ultimately, the success of an alibi defense will depend on the specific facts of the case and the strength of the evidence that the defendant can present.
Here are some tips for presenting a plea of alibi- When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant.:
- Be specific about your whereabouts at the time of the crime.
- Provide the names of witnesses who can corroborate your alibi.
- If you have any documentation that supports your alibi, such as receipts, phone records, or travel itineraries, provide this to the court.
- Be prepared to answer questions about your alibi from the prosecution.
If you are considering raising an alibi defense, it is important to consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney.