Relevancy and reasons for excluding relevant evidence - Ultimate issue rule

Learning Outcomes

After reading this article, you will be able to identify when evidence is relevant, explain the main reasons relevant evidence may be excluded, and apply the ultimate issue rule to expert testimony. You will also distinguish between proper and improper opinion evidence on the ultimate issue, and recognize common MBE pitfalls on this topic.

MBE Syllabus

For MBE, you are required to understand the principles governing the admissibility of evidence, including the boundaries of relevancy and the reasons relevant evidence may be excluded. This article focuses your revision on:

  • The definition and scope of relevancy in evidence law.
  • The main policy reasons for excluding relevant evidence (e.g., prejudice, confusion, waste of time).
  • The ultimate issue rule and its application to expert and lay opinion testimony.
  • The limits on expert testimony regarding the ultimate issue, especially in criminal cases.
  • The relationship between the ultimate issue rule and other exclusionary rules.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

  1. Which of the following is most accurate regarding the ultimate issue rule?
    1. Expert witnesses may always state an opinion on the ultimate issue.
    2. Lay witnesses may never state an opinion on the ultimate issue.
    3. Expert witnesses may state an opinion on the ultimate issue, except as to a criminal defendant’s mental state.
    4. Relevant evidence is always admissible, regardless of the ultimate issue.
  2. A defendant is on trial for murder. The prosecution’s expert psychiatrist testifies, “In my opinion, the defendant had the intent to kill.” Is this testimony admissible?
    1. Yes, because it helps the jury decide intent.
    2. Yes, because experts may always testify to the ultimate issue.
    3. No, because experts cannot state an opinion as to whether the defendant had the required mental state.
    4. No, because expert testimony is never allowed on intent.
  3. Which of the following is a valid reason for excluding relevant evidence?
    1. The evidence is cumulative.
    2. The evidence is highly prejudicial.
    3. The evidence may confuse the jury.
    4. All of the above.

Introduction

Relevancy is the threshold requirement for the admissibility of evidence. However, not all relevant evidence is admitted. The rules of evidence also exclude relevant evidence for policy reasons, including the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. The ultimate issue rule addresses whether witnesses, especially experts, may give opinions on the precise legal question the jury must decide. Understanding these principles is essential for MBE success.

Relevancy: The Basic Standard

Evidence is relevant if it tends to make a fact of consequence in the case more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Key Term: Relevancy Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Reasons for Excluding Relevant Evidence

Even if evidence is relevant, it may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Key Term: Policy Exclusion A rule that excludes otherwise relevant evidence for reasons such as prejudice, confusion, or waste of time, to ensure fairness and efficiency in trials.

The Ultimate Issue Rule

The ultimate issue rule governs whether a witness, especially an expert, may give an opinion that directly addresses the legal question the jury must decide.

Key Term: Ultimate Issue Rule A rule stating that opinion testimony is not objectionable merely because it embraces an ultimate issue, but with limits for expert testimony in criminal cases.

Application to Lay and Expert Witnesses

Lay witnesses may give opinions only if rationally based on their perception and helpful to the jury. Experts may give opinions on the ultimate issue, except that in a criminal case, an expert may not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime or defense.

Key Term: Expert Testimony on Ultimate Issue In criminal cases, experts may not state an opinion on whether the defendant had the mental state required for the offense or defense.

Worked Example 1.1

A defendant is charged with arson. The prosecution calls a fire investigator, who testifies, “In my opinion, the fire was intentionally set.” Is this testimony admissible?

Answer: Yes. The expert may give an opinion that the fire was intentionally set, as this helps the jury decide a fact in issue. The expert is not stating whether the defendant had the required mental state, only that the fire was set intentionally.

Worked Example 1.2

In a murder trial, the defense calls a psychiatrist who testifies, “The defendant lacked the capacity to form intent to kill.” The prosecutor objects. Is the testimony admissible?

Answer: No. In a criminal case, an expert may not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime or defense. The expert may describe symptoms or diagnoses, but not give a direct opinion on the defendant’s intent.

Exam Warning

On the MBE, do not confuse the ultimate issue rule with the general rule against legal conclusions. Experts may testify to facts and opinions, but may not give legal conclusions or direct opinions on a criminal defendant’s mental state.

Revision Tip

If a question asks whether an expert can testify that the defendant “was insane” or “had intent,” remember: in criminal cases, experts cannot give an opinion on whether the defendant had the required mental state.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

  • Evidence is relevant if it makes a fact of consequence more or less probable.
  • Relevant evidence may be excluded for policy reasons, such as unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time.
  • The ultimate issue rule allows opinion testimony on the ultimate issue, but with limits for experts in criminal cases.
  • Experts may not state an opinion on whether a criminal defendant had the mental state constituting an element of the crime or defense.
  • Lay opinions must be rationally based and helpful, but cannot state legal conclusions.

Key Terms and Concepts

  • Relevancy
  • Policy Exclusion
  • Ultimate Issue Rule
  • Expert Testimony on Ultimate Issue
The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
AdaptiBar
One-time Fee
$395
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
BarPrepHero
One-time Fee
$299
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350
Quimbee
One-time Fee
$1,199

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal