(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), the court shall determine preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence.
(2) When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the existence of a preliminary fact, the court shall admit the proffered evidence if there is prima facie evidence sufficient to support a finding of the preliminary fact.
(3) If the court admits the proffered evidence under subsection (2), the court may, and upon request shall, instruct the jury to determine whether the preliminary fact exists and to disregard the proffered evidence if it finds that the preliminary fact does not exist.
Who Decides What? The Judge vs. The Jury: This statute clarifies the division of labor between the judge and the jury when it comes to preliminary questions about evidence.
The Judge's Role (Legal Gatekeeper): The judge is responsible for deciding most preliminary questions. This includes whether a witness is qualified, whether a legal privilege applies, and whether most evidence is admissible under the rules.
The Jury's Role (Conditional Relevance): There's an important exception for when the relevance of a piece of evidence depends on a preliminary fact. This is called "conditional relevance." In this situation, the judge does not decide the fact. The judge only determines if there is enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the fact exists. If there is, the evidence is admitted, and the jury makes the final call.
Example: A party wants to introduce a threatening letter, but its relevance depends on whether the defendant actually wrote it. The judge will not decide if the defendant wrote it. The judge will only decide if there's enough handwriting evidence to let a jury make that call. If so, the letter is admitted, and the judge will instruct the jury that they must disregard the letter if they ultimately decide the defendant did not write it.
