Maine Restyling Note [November 2014]
Maine Rule 411 is substantially identical with the first sentence of Federal Rule 411. The second sentence of the original Federal Rule 411 was omitted in the Maine rule as redundant and unnecessary. See, e.g., Rule 404(b). But see Rule 407. The proposed restyled Maine Rule follows the first sentence of the restyled Federal Rule.
Federal Advisory Committee Note
The language of Rule 411 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
42 This language has changed, and the Federal Rule does not appear to allow impeachment use anymore. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and its notes do not seem to clarify the situation.
Rule 411 previously provided that evidence was not excluded if offered for a purpose not explicitly prohibited by the Rule. To improve the language of the Rule, it now provides that the court may admit evidence if offered for a permissible purpose. There is no intent to change the process for admitting evidence covered by the Rule. It remains the case that if offered for an impermissible purpose, it must be excluded, and if offered for a purpose not barred by the Rule, its admissibility remains governed by the general principles of Rules 402, 403, 801, etc.
Advisers’ Note to former M.R. Evid. 411
(February 2, 1976)
The exclusion of evidence of liability insurance or the lack of it on the issue of fault is in accord with Maine law. St. Pierre v. Houde, 269 A.2d 538 (Me. 1970). The inference that an insured person would on that account drive carelessly is too weak. The Maine policy against injection of the fact of insurance into an action is a strong one. See M.R.C.P. 17(a) which, despite the requirement that an action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, allows a subrogated insurer to sue in the name of the assured. See also Allen v. Pomroy, 277 A.2d 727 (Me. 1971). Numerous cases apply the general rule that evidence of insurance in negligence cases is “immaterial, prejudicial, and inadmissible.” Deschaine v. Deschaine, 153 Me. 401, 407, 140 A.2d 746, 749 (1958). See also Downs v. Poulin, 216 A.2d 29, 33 (1966); Duguay v. Pomerleau, 299 A.2d 914 (Me. 1973) (stating the general standard that reference to insurance is to be avoided unless extraordinary circumstances require it). The rule does not compel the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when it is relevant for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.
