§ Rule 402. Relevant evidence generally admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible

Codes > Pennsylvania Statutes and Consolidated Statutes > Rules of > Article IV > Rule 402.

Rule 402. Relevant evidence generally admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by law. Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible.

Comment: Pa.R.E. 402 is similar to F.R.E. 402. The only variance is in the language of the exceptions clause in the first sentence. The exceptions clause of the federal rule specifically enumerates the various sources of federal rule-making power. Pa.R.E. 402 substitutes the phrase, “by law”, to encompass analogous sources of rule-making power within the Commonwealth.

The rule states a fundamental concept of the law of evidence. Relevant evidence is admissible; evidence that is not relevant is not admissible. This concept is modified by the exceptions clause of the rule, which states another fundamental principle of evidentiary law. Evidence otherwise relevant may be excluded by operation of constitutional law, by statute, by rules of evidence created by decisional law, by these rules, or by other rules promulgated by the Supreme Court.

As noted in the Comment to Pa.R.E. 101, a principal goal of these rules is to construct a comprehensive code of evidence governing court proceedings in the Commonwealth. Pa.R.E. 402 explicitly recognizes, however, that these rules cannot be all inclusive. The law of evidence is also shaped by constitutional principle, legislative enactment, procedural rule-making and decisional law. These rules of evidence are not intended to supersede other provisions of law, unless they do so expressly or by necessary implication.

Examples of decisionally created rules of exclusion that are not abrogated by the adoption of these rules include: the corpus delicti rule, Commonwealth v. Ware, 459 Pa. 334, 329 A.2d 258 (1974); the collateral source rule, Boudwin v. Yellow Cab Co., 410 Pa. 31, 188 A.2d 259 (1963); the parol evidence rule, Gianni v. R. Russell and Co., Inc., 281 Pa. 320, 126 A. 791 (1924); and the rule excluding certain evidence to rebut the presumption of legitimacy, John M. v. Paula T., 524 Pa. 306, 571 A.2d 1380 (1990).