§ Rule 103. Rulings on evidence

Codes > Pennsylvania Statutes and Consolidated Statutes > Rules of > Article I > Rule 103.

Rule 103. Rulings on evidence

(a) Effect of Erroneous Ruling. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling that admits or excludes evidence unless

(1) Objection. In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection, motion to strike or motion in limine appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context; or

(2) Offer of Proof.In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer or by motion in limine or was apparent from the context within which the evidence was offered.

Once the court makes a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.

(b) Record of Offer and Ruling. The court may add any other or further statement which shows the character of the evidence, the form in which it was offered, the objection made, and the ruling thereon. It may direct the making of an offer in question and answer form.

(c) Hearing of Jury. In jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to prevent inadmissible evidence from being suggested to the jury by any means, such as making statements or offers of proof or asking questions in the hearing of the jury.

Comment: Paragraph 103(a) differs from F.R.E. 103(a) in that the Federal rule says, “Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and” (emphasis added). The italicized words have been deleted because they are inconsistent with prior Pennsylvania case law in criminal cases. In criminal cases, the accused is entitled to relief for an erroneous ruling unless the court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the error is harmless. See Commonwealth v. Story, 476 Pa. 391, 383 A.2d 155 (1978). Civil cases are governed by Pa.R.C.P. 126 which permits the court to disregard an erroneous ruling “which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Pa.R.E. 103(a) does not change the existing rule.

Paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) are consistent with prior Pennsylvania case law. See Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co., 457 Pa. 255, 322 A.2d 114 (1974); Commonwealth v. Clair, 458 Pa. 418, 326 A.2d 272 (1974). Paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) are similar to F.R.E. 103(a)(1) and (a)(2). The term “motion in limine” has been added and the last three words have been changed. Motions in limine permit the trial court to make rulings on evidence prior to trial or at trial but before the evidence is offered. Such motions can expedite the trial and assist in producing just determinations. A ruling on a motion in limine on the record is sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal, without renewal of the objection or offer at trial. The change in language is intended to make clear that the requirement that offers of proof be made is applicable to testimonial and other types of evidence.

Pa.R.E. 103(a) was amended in 2001 by adding the second paragraph. The amendment, which is identical to the amendment to F.R.E. 103(a) that became effective December 1, 2000, is consistent with prior Pennsylvania case law. See Bell v. City of Philadelphia, 491 A.2d 1396 (Pa. Super 1985). It is also consistent with the second paragraph of this Comment.

Paragraphs (b) and (c) are identical to F.R.E. 103(b) and (c) and are consistent with Pennsylvania practice.

F.R.E. 103(d) permits a court to grant relief for “plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” This paragraph has been deleted because it is inconsistent with paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) and with prior Pennsylvania case law as established in Dilliplaine and Clair.