Inclusive v. Exclusive Rules
Utah’s Rules of Evidence govern a trial court’s determination of what evidence is admissible or inadmissible in court. Under Rule 402, relevant evidence is presumed admissible and irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.
Many of the rules are rules of “inclusion” – meaning that they outline or clarify what kinds of evidence can be admitted (e.g. Rule 702 allowing opinion and conclusion testimony from expert witnesses). But Rule 403 is a rule of “exclusion” – it establishes that even relevant evidence, otherwise admissible, should still be excluded as inadmissible under certain conditions.
Grounds for Inadmissibility under Rule 403
Relevant evidence can be ruled inadmissible and excluded under Rule 403 if the evidence creates 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.
Probative Value is Substantially Outweighed by Danger
A court’s determination that the evidence creates a danger of one of the above-listed concerns does not automatically result in exclusion of the evidence. The court must also find that the probative value of the evidence is “substantially outweighed” by the danger created.
Keep in mind that Rule 403 states that the court “may” exclude such evidence. Use of the word “may” suggests that the rule provides the court with some degree of discretion in making its admissibility decision.