Legal Definitions - incompetent evidence

Incompetent evidence refers to information or items presented in court that are not allowed to be considered by the judge or jury because they are either irrelevant or immaterial to the specific legal issues being decided in the case. In simpler terms, it's evidence that has no logical connection or bearing on whether a fact in dispute is true or false.

While such evidence is generally inadmissible, courts sometimes allow it to be presented. However, in cases decided by a judge without a jury, an appeals court typically won't overturn the trial court's decision simply because incompetent evidence was admitted, unless that evidence was crucial to the outcome and there wasn't enough other valid evidence to support the judge's findings.

• Example 1: Civil Contract Dispute

  Imagine a lawsuit where a software company is suing a client for unpaid fees, claiming the client breached their service agreement. During the trial, the client's attorney attempts to introduce evidence that the software company's CEO frequently posts controversial political opinions on social media.

  This evidence would be considered incompetent because the CEO's personal political views are entirely irrelevant to whether the client fulfilled their financial obligations under the service contract. The legal issue is about the terms of the contract and payment, not the CEO's personal beliefs.

• Example 2: Criminal Assault Case

  A person is on trial for assault. The prosecution presents eyewitness testimony and medical reports. The defense attorney tries to introduce a witness who testifies that the defendant is an excellent cook and often bakes cookies for their neighbors.

  This testimony is incompetent evidence. While it might speak to the defendant's general character as a kind person, it is irrelevant and immaterial to the specific legal question of whether the defendant committed the alleged assault. The act of baking cookies has no bearing on proving or disproving the assault charge.

• Example 3: Child Custody Battle

  In a child custody dispute between two parents, the court is focused on determining what is in the best interest of the child. One parent attempts to introduce evidence that the other parent drives an old, beat-up car and lives in a modest apartment, suggesting they are not wealthy.

  This evidence would likely be deemed incompetent. While financial stability can be a factor, the mere fact that a parent drives an older car or lives in a modest apartment is not, by itself, relevant or material to their ability to provide a loving, safe, and stable environment for a child. The focus is on parenting capacity and the child's well-being, not a parent's material possessions or income level unless it directly impacts the child's needs.