Me. R. Evid. 403 (2026)

RULE 403. EXCLUDING RELEVANT EVIDENCE FOR PREJUDICE, CONFUSION, WASTE OF TIME, OR OTHER REASONS

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially 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.

Maine Restyling Note [November 2014]

Maine Rule 403 and Federal Rule 403 are substantively identical, and therefore the Advisory Committee recommends adoption of the language of the restyled Federal Rule.

Federal Advisory Committee Note

The language of Rule 403 has been amended as part of the 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. __________________________________________________________________

Advisers’ Note to former M.R. Evid. 403 (February 2, 1976)

This rule reflects Maine law. See e.g., State v. Berube, 297 A.2d 884 (Me. 1972). The trial judge has broad discretion in determining whether the probative value of evidence is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice or confusion of issues or by sheer waste of time.