What is the primary focus of the general rule of relevance in admissibility of evidence?

The primary focus of the general rule of relevance in the admissibility of evidence is to ensure that all relevant evidence is admissible unless expressly excluded by specific rules. Relevance refers to the connection that a piece of evidence has to the facts at issue in a case, which directly impacts its admissibility. If evidence is deemed relevant, it generally means that it assists in establishing a fact that is significant to the legal proceedings.

This principle allows for a broad range of evidence to be considered, aligning with the foundational aim of achieving a fair and comprehensive presentation of cases in court. The courts tend to favor the inclusion of relevant evidence to promote the pursuit of truth in legal proceedings, while also having provisions to exclude evidence that may be prejudicial, misleading, or not beneficial to the case's resolution, as outlined by specific rules.

In this context, the other choices do not capture the essence of the relevance rule accurately. Denying frivolous evidence focuses on a narrower goal, rather than embracing the broad concept of admissibility based on relevance. Similarly, ensuring that only the most impactful evidence is presented imposes an unnecessary hierarchy on evidence that might inhibit a comprehensive examination of the facts. Lastly, prioritizing one type of evidence over another, such as documentary over testimonial