In an appeal of a trial court's ruling on the relevance of evidence, which standard governs the appellate review?

• A. Harmless error
• B. Abuse of discretion
• C. Clearly erroneous
• D. De novo

Answer: (B)

The key idea is how appellate courts review a trial court’s decision about whether evidence is relevant and admissible. Such rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. That means the appellate court defers to the trial judge’s balancing of probative value against potential prejudice, confusion, or other Rule 403 concerns, and will reverse only if the ruling falls outside the range of reasonable choices—i.e., the judge acted arbitrarily, or in a way that misapplied the law or ignored a material factor.

This isn’t a pure question of law that would be reviewed de novo, because the decision turns on how the judge weighed the evidence in the context of the case. It isn’t a purely factual finding that would be reviewed for “clearly erroneous.” And while harmless error analyzes the impact of an error after the ruling, the standard governing the review of the ruling itself remains abuse of discretion.