Which term allows evidence that would otherwise be subject to suppression be admissible if the State can show that the evidence would have been inevitably and legally discovered by lawful means?

• A. Defense's Case
• B. Inevitable Discovery
• C. Opening Statements
• D. Adult Juvenile

Answer: (B)

Inevitable discovery is an exception to the exclusionary rule. It lets evidence that would have been found through lawful means anyway be admitted, even if it was initially obtained through an unlawful action. The key idea is that the police would have discovered the evidence regardless of the illegal step, so excluding it would not deter future misconduct and would unnecessarily suppress reliable information.

The state must show, usually by a preponderance of the evidence, that lawful discovery of the evidence was inevitable. This is often demonstrated by pointing to steps the investigators would have taken that would have led to the same finding without the improper conduct. A classic example is where investigators would have found the evidence in a lawful search or investigation at a later time, making suppression inappropriate.

This concept helps balance deterrence of illegal police conduct with the practical goal of not throwing out reliable evidence that the public’s interest in justice would favor keeping.

The other options don’t apply here because they refer to different trial-stage concepts or terms. Defense's Case concerns the defense presenting its own evidence, Opening Statements are the preliminary outlines of each side’s case, and Adult Juvenile is not a recognized doctrine related to admissibility.