Print Version
Previous PageFile uploaded: 4/4/2012

Rule403.     Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice,Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons


The court may excluderelevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by adanger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presentingcumulative evidence.


2011 Advisory CommitteeNote. The languageof this rule has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules tomake them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistentthroughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There isno intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility. Thisrule is the federal rule, verbatim.




This rule isthe federal rule, verbatim, and is substantively comparable to Rule 45, UtahRules of Evidence (1971) except that "surprise" is not included as abasis for exclusion of relevant evidence. The change in language is not one ofsubstance, since "surprise" would be within the concept of "unfairprejudice" as contained in Rule 403. See also Advisory Committee Note toFederal Rule 403 indicating that a continuance in most instances would be amore appropriate method of dealing with "surprise." See also Smith v.Estelle, 445 F. Supp. 647 (N.D. Tex. 1977)(surprise use of psychiatrictestimony in capital case ruled prejudicial and violation of due process). Seethe following Utah cases to the same effect. Terry v. ZionsCoop. Mercantile Inst., 605 P.2d 314 (Utah 1979); State v. Johns, 615 P.2d 1260(Utah 1980); Reiser v. Lohner,641 P.2d 93 (Utah 1982).