Also known as: probative value substantially outweighed · Rule 403 balancing · FRE 403
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An evidentiary standard permitting a court to exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Penelope Price's estate sues Valley Medical Center after her death from delayed cancer treatment. The estate offers a video showing invasive procedures and sobbing family members during her final days. Medical records and expert testimony already establish the extent of her suffering. The court excludes the video because its emotional impact substantially outweighs any additional probative value on the malpractice issue.
Preston Pratt faces a felon-in-possession charge and offers to stipulate that he has a prior felony conviction. The government seeks to introduce the full record naming the prior offense as vehicular homicide. The court excludes the details because the stipulation satisfies the status element and the name and nature of the conviction create unfair prejudice that substantially outweighs any remaining probative value.
Parker Phillips is charged with robbery. The prosecution offers an out-of-court identification made under suggestive circumstances. The defense objects that the identification carries a high risk of misidentification. The court excludes the evidence because its limited reliability creates unfair prejudice that substantially outweighs its probative value on the issue of identity.
Pilar Pena is tried for securities fraud. The government offers evidence of uncharged similar transactions from years earlier to prove intent. The defense argues the transactions are only marginally relevant and highly prejudicial. The court excludes the evidence because its probative value on intent is substantially outweighed by the danger that the jury will convict based on propensity.
Pavel Petrov is charged with assault. He seeks to introduce evidence of extreme intoxication to negate the mental state required for the offense. The prosecution objects that the evidence invites jury nullification. The court excludes the evidence because its probative value on the mental-state issue is substantially outweighed by the risk of misleading the jury.
Prime Logistics sues a former employee for trade-secret theft. The employee offers evidence that the company's lead witness belongs to a group hostile to the defendant. The company objects that the group affiliation is inflammatory. The court excludes the evidence because its probative value on bias is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the witness.
A court excludes relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or needless cumulation. The test begins with a presumption of admissibility but permits exclusion when the risk of improper jury use greatly exceeds the evidence's legitimate force. Graphic or inflammatory presentations often trigger exclusion once less prejudicial alternatives exist.
Supporting sources
…For example, Federal (and Montana) Rule of Evidence 403 provides: " Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."…
…issue is the scope of a trial judge's discretion under Rule 403, which authorizes exclusion of relevant evidence when its "probative value is substantially outweighed
…unless the Rules provide otherwise. Rule
…implicated by Ehle’s rebuttal of Mills. [^maj-3]: Rule 403 provides: “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its
…identification evidence. State and Federal Rules of Evidence, moreover, permit trial judges to exclude relevant evidence if its
Yes. When a defendant offers to stipulate to felon status in a possession case, the probative value of introducing the name or details of the prior conviction drops sharply. The stipulation satisfies the element, leaving only marginal additional value in the full record. The risk that jurors will punish the defendant for the prior offense rather than decide the current charge then substantially outweighs that reduced value.
Supporting sources
A sensational montage of prior crashes with ominous music and emotional interviews has some probative value on notice or pattern. Yet the dramatic editing and unrelated victim testimony create a strong risk that jurors will punish the defendant for uncharged conduct rather than decide the present case. That risk of unfair prejudice and jury confusion substantially outweighs the montage's limited probative worth.
Supporting sources
An internal slideshow filled with memes mocking customers may suggest a dismissive culture but has little connection to whether a specific product malfunctioned. Its weak probative value on the central defect issue is substantially outweighed by the danger that jurors will decide against the company because they dislike its attitude rather than because they find a defect.
Supporting sources
No. Graphic evidence naming the prior felony as sexual assault and calling the victim to describe the assault adds virtually nothing once the defendant stipulates to felon status. The evidence creates a powerful risk that jurors will view the defendant as a predator and convict on that basis rather than on the gun-possession charge, so the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs any marginal probative value.
Supporting sources