Can relevant evidence be excluded for prejudice if its probative value is outweighed?

Can relevant evidence be excluded for prejudice if its probative value is outweighed?

• A. Yes, if the probative value is substantially outweighed by prejudice or confusion.
• B. No.
• C. Yes, always.
• D. Only if it involves character evidence.

Answer: (A)

Relevant evidence can be kept out even when it’s admissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice or confusion. This comes from the Rule 403 balancing test: a court weighs how strongly the evidence tends to prove a fact against the potential for inflaming the jury or confusing the issues. If that balance tips heavily toward prejudice or confusion, the evidence should be excluded, despite its relevance. In practice, this means a court won’t admit highly prejudicial evidence that doesn’t offer enough probative value to justify the danger it poses. The rule applies to all relevant evidence, not just character evidence, and the decision isn’t automatic or absolute—it's about whether the prejudice or confusion would substantially outweigh the evidence’s usefulness.

Relevant evidence can be kept out even when it’s admissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice or confusion. This comes from the Rule 403 balancing test: a court weighs how strongly the evidence tends to prove a fact against the potential for inflaming the jury or confusing the issues. If that balance tips heavily toward prejudice or confusion, the evidence should be excluded, despite its relevance.

In practice, this means a court won’t admit highly prejudicial evidence that doesn’t offer enough probative value to justify the danger it poses. The rule applies to all relevant evidence, not just character evidence, and the decision isn’t automatic or absolute—it's about whether the prejudice or confusion would substantially outweigh the evidence’s usefulness.