Rule Text
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
Amendment history: The provisions of this Rule 403 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (317754).
Plain-English Summary (for reference only — not a substitute for the rule text above)
This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.
A judge can keep out evidence even if it relates to the case. This happens when the evidence might cause more harm than good.
For example, a judge might block evidence that would unfairly turn the jury against one side, confuse the jury about what the case is really about, or just repeat things that have already been shown. The goal is to keep the trial fair and focused.
Committee Notes
Pa.R.E. 403 differs from F.R.E. 403. The Federal Rule provides that relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is ‘‘substantially outweighed.’’ Pa.R.E. 403 eliminates the word ‘‘substantially’’ to conform the text of the rule more closely to Pennsylvania law. See Commonwealth v. Boyle, 498 Pa. 486, 447 A.2d 250 (1982).
‘‘Unfair prejudice’’ means a tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis or to divert the jury’s attention away from its duty of weighing the evidence impartially.
Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013.
Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013).