Home › Alabama › Rules of Evidence › Rule 102

Rule 102 Purpose and construction.

← Previous Rule 101: Scope. Next → Rule 103: Rulings on evidence.

Rule Text

These rules shall be construed to secure fairness in administration, elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay, and promotion of growth and development of the law of evidence to the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined.

Plain-English Summary (for reference only — not a substitute for the rule text above)

This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.

Here's a plain English summary:

This rule explains the whole point behind Alabama's evidence rules. Courts are supposed to read and apply these rules in a way that keeps things fair for everyone involved in a case. The goal is to avoid wasting time and money on unnecessary steps while still getting to the truth.

Judges use this rule as a guide when they're not sure how to interpret a specific evidence rule. Instead of picking whatever answer seems technically correct, they're supposed to ask what result makes the trial fair and helps uncover what actually happened. This keeps the focus on justice rather than getting stuck on strict technicalities.

In short, this rule reminds everyone that evidence rules exist to help courts find the truth and treat people fairly, not to create confusing obstacles or unnecessary delays.

Committee Notes

Advisory Committee’s Notes

This general statement of purpose and construction is identical to that in Fed.R.Evid. 102. The language used is similar to that found in other rules of practice and procedure. See, e.g., Ala.R.Civ.P. 1(c) (Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure are to be construed “to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action”); Ala. Code 1975, § (all provisions of the Criminal Code are to be interpreted “according to the fair import of their terms to promote justice and to effect the objects of law”); Ala.R.Crim.P. 1.2 (rules are to be constructed so as “to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration, and the elimination of unnecessary delay and expense, and to protect the rights of the individual while preserving the public welfare”).

These rules have been modeled, except where a different treatment was deemed justified for Alabama practice, after the Federal Rules of Evidence, and much of the material in the advisory notes is devoted to a discussion of whether the Alabama Rule of Evidence is identical to or different from its counterpart under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The committee assumes, consequently, that cases interpreting the Federal Rules of Evidence will constitute authority for construction of the Alabama Rules of Evidence. See, e.g., State v. Smith, 97 Wash. 2d 856, 651 P.2d 207 (1982); Smithey v. State, 269 Ark. 538, 602 S.W.2d 676 (1980). Cf. Ex parte Duncan Constr. Co., 460 So.2d 852 (Ala.1984) (Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure are construed in light of cases interpreting Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). Cases interpreting the federal rules, however, are persuasive rather than mandatory authority before the Alabama courts. See State v. Outlaw, 108 Wis. 2d 112, 321 N.W.2d 145 (1982).