Also known as: probative danger · Rule 403 dangers · unfair prejudice
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Countervailing risks that accompany relevant evidence and may justify its exclusion when they substantially outweigh its probative value.
Philip Powell offered a graphic crime-scene photograph to prove the manner of death in a homicide prosecution. The image showed extreme injuries that would likely provoke strong emotional reactions from jurors. The court weighed whether those reactions would substantially outweigh the photograph's value in establishing intent.
Preston Pratt faced charges involving an alleged scheme. The government sought to introduce evidence of an earlier similar transaction to show intent. The trial court assessed whether the jury could reasonably find the prior act occurred and whether any resulting prejudice substantially outweighed the evidence's value on the non-propensity issue.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Penelope Price was charged as a felon in possession. She offered to stipulate to her prior conviction status. The government nevertheless sought to introduce the full record naming the offense. The court evaluated whether the name and nature of the conviction created unfair prejudice that substantially outweighed its probative value on the sole disputed element.
Patrick Phan sought to introduce third-party guilt evidence in his murder trial. The evidence suggested an alternate perpetrator but carried risks of jury confusion over collateral matters. The court balanced the evidence's tendency to create reasonable doubt against dangers of misleading the jury or wasting time.
Pamela Phillips faced enhanced penalties based on prior convictions. The government introduced the convictions without full details of the underlying conduct. The court considered whether any additional facts would create unfair prejudice that substantially outweighed their value in establishing the sentencing enhancement.
Pearl Porter testified about an earlier identification. The defense offered evidence that she had suffered a head injury affecting recall. The court assessed whether the memory evidence's probative value on credibility was substantially outweighed by risks of confusing the issues or undue delay.
A court examines the strength of the evidence on a fact of consequence, the availability of less prejudicial alternatives such as stipulations or limiting instructions, and the importance of the fact to the overall case. It also weighs risks of unfair prejudice, jury confusion, misleading effects, undue delay, and cumulative presentation. The balancing occurs under the governing evidence rule that permits exclusion only when the dangers substantially predominate.
An offer to stipulate removes any need for details beyond the fact of conviction itself. Introducing the name and nature of the offense then carries a heightened risk of unfair prejudice that generally exceeds its marginal value when status is the only disputed element. Courts therefore often exclude the full record under the balancing test.
Yes. Even highly relevant evidence may be excluded if the identified dangers substantially outweigh its value.
…“substantially outweighs [any] prejudicial effect,” Fed. Rule Evid. 703, or “the probative value . . . outweighs the risk of unfair prejudice.” People v. Pasch , 152 Ill. 2d 133, 223, 604 N. E. 2d 294, 333 (1992). When this disclosure occurs, “the underlying facts” are revealed to the jury “for the limited purpose of explaining…