Print Version
Previous PageFile uploaded: 6/10/2019

Rule 403.? ExcludingRelevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons.

 

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more ofthe following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury,undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

 

2011 Advisory Committee Note. ?The language of this rule has been amendedas part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easilyunderstood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules.These changes are intended to be stylistic only. Thereis no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility. Thisrule is the federal rule, verbatim.

 

Original Advisory CommitteeNote. This rule is the federal rule, verbatim, and is substantively comparable toRule 45, Utah Rules of Evidence (1971) except that "surprise" is notincluded as a basis for exclusion of relevant evidence. The change in languageis not one of substance, since "surprise" would be within the conceptof "unfair prejudice" as contained in Rule 403. See also AdvisoryCommittee Note to Federal Rule 403 indicating that a continuance in mostinstances would be a more appropriate method of dealing with"surprise." See also Smith v. Estelle, 445 F. Supp. 647 (N.D.Tex. 1977) (surprise use of psychiatric testimony in capital case ruledprejudicial and violation of due process). See the following Utah cases to thesame effect. Terry v. Zions Coop. Mercantile Inst., 605 P.2d314 (Utah 1979); State v. Johns, 615 P.2d 1260 (Utah 1980); Reiser v. Lohner,641 P.2d 93 (Utah 1982).