§ Rule 403. Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time
Rule 403. Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
Comment: Pa.R.E. 403 differs from F.R.E. 403. The federal rule provides that relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is “substantially outweighed.” Pa.R.E. 403 eliminates the word “substantially” to conform the text of the rule more closely to Pennsylvania law. See Commonwealth v. Boyle, 498 Pa. 486, 447 A.2d 250 (1982); Morrison v. Commonwealth, Dept.of Pub. Welfare, 538 Pa. 122, 646 A.2d 565 (1994).
“Unfair prejudice” means a tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis or to divert the jury's attention away from its duty of weighing the evidence impartially.
With regard to evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts of the defendant in a criminal case, seePa.R.E. 404(b)(3).