Rule 103 Rulings on Evidence
| Library | The Illinois Rules of Evidence: A Color-Coded Guide (2019 Ed.) |
Rule 103. Rulings on Evidence
(a) Preserving a Claim of Error. A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of the party and:
(1) if the ruling admits evidence, a party, on the record:
(A) timely objects or moves to strike; and(2) if the ruling excludes evidence, a party informs the court of its substance by an offer of proof, unless the substance was apparent from the context.
(B) states the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context; or
(b) Not Needing to Renew an Objection or Offer of Proof. Once the court rules definitively on the record—either before or at trial—a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.
(c) Court's Statement About the Ruling; Directing an Offer of Proof. The court may make any statement about the character or form of the evidence, the objection made, and the ruling. The court may direct that an offer of proof be made in question-and-answer form.
(d) Preventing the Jury from Hearing Inadmissible Evidence. To the extent practicable, the court must conduct a jury trial so that inadmissible evidence is not suggested to the jury by any means.
(e) Taking Notice of Plain Error. A court may take notice of a plain error affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly preserved.
Rule 103. Rulings on Evidence
(a) Effect of Erroneous Ruling. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and
(1) Objection. In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike 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 was apparent from the context within which questions were asked.
(b) Preserving a Claim of Error for Appeal.
(1) Civil and Criminal Cases. In civil and criminal trials where the court has not made a previous ruling on the record concerning the admission of evidence, a contemporaneous trial objection or offer of proof must be made to preserve a claim of error for appeal.
(2) Criminal Cases. In criminal trials, once the court rules before or at trial on the record concerning the admission of evidence, a contemporaneous trial objection or offer of proof need not be renewed to preserve a claim of error for appeal.
(3) Civil Cases. In civil trials, even if the court rules before or at trial on the record concerning the admission of evidence, a contemporaneous trial objection or offer of proof must be made to preserve a claim of error for appeal.
(4) Posttrial Motions. In all criminal trials and in civil jury trials, in addition to the requirements provided above, a claim of error must be made in a posttrial motion to preserve the claim for appeal. Such a motion is not required in a civil nonjury trial.
(c) 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.
(d) 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.
(e) Plain Error. Nothing in this rule precludes taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the court.
FRE 103(a)
FRE 103(a), like IRE 103(a), provides that, to preserve error for review, a timely objection or an offer of proof is required. In addition to that requirement, in criminal jury cases see Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, and in civil jury cases see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. See also Ortiz v. Jordan, 131 S. Ct. 884 (2011) (absent a Rule 50 motion, "we have repeatedly held, an appellate court is 'powerless' to review the sufficiency of the evidence after trial"), quoting Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. 546 U.S. 394 (2006) ("A postverdict motion is necessary because '[d]etermination of whether a new trial should be granted or a judgment entered under Rule 50(b) calls for the judgment in the first instance of the judge who saw and heard the witnesses and has the feel of the case which no appellate printed transcript can impart.'").
FRE 103(b)
In 2000, a paragraph was added to FRE 103(a). That paragraph was converted into FRE 103(b) as a result of the amendments that were made to the federal rules for stylistic purposes effective December 1, 2011. Under current FRE 103(b), in a federal court proceeding there is no need to renew an objection or an offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal once the court makes a "definitive" ruling that admits or excludes evidence. That portion of the federal rule was not adopted in Illinois, because a renewal of an objection or an offer of proof is required in civil cases in Illinois, even where there was a previous definitive ruling by the court (generally, in a pretrial ruling on a motion in limine). See the Author's Commentary on Ill. R. Evid. 103(a), as well as the Author's Commentary on Ill. R. Evid. 103(b).
The issue of what is a "definitive" ruling occasionally is a disputed issue in federal cases. In Wilson v. Williams, 182 F. 3d 562 (7th Cir. 1999), a case decided while the amendment to the rule was pending before Congress and before its adoption, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, offered guidance as to what is meant by a "definitive" ruling. The court succinctly pointed out that definitive rulings "do not invite reconsideration." Wilson, 182 F.3d at 566. The court made that statement after explaining that,
"if the judge's ruling is tentative—if, for example, the judge says that certain evidence will be admitted unless it would be unduly prejudicial given the way the trial develops—then later events may lead to reconsideration, and the litigant adversely affected by the ruling must raise the subject later so that the judge may decide whether intervening events affect the ruling." Wilson, 182 F.3d at 565-66.
The court also pointed out that "[a] pretrial ruling is definitive only with respect to subjects it covers" (Id., at 568), and, because in the case at bar there was no objection to the misuse of evidence admitted by the trial court, the issue had been forfeited on appeal. From Wilson and subsequent federal circuit court decisions, it is clear that trial court rulings that do not satisfy the rule's requirement of "definitive" are those that are tentative or conditional, or made without prejudice, or made with the court's statement that it is willing to reconsider its ruling, or address only a limited subject matter that does not cover trial error alleged to have been made. Where those circumstances are present, to preserve an issue for appeal, a renewal of an objection or an offer of proof must be made.
For a recent example of the application of FRE 103(b)'s definitive ruling requirement, see United States v. Bradford, ___ F.3d ___, No. 17-1080 (7th Cir. September 19, 2018) (holding that, though defendant had made a motion in limine, the motion had not been made with specificity as required by FRE 103(a)(1)(B) for it did not cite Rules 404(b) or 403, both of which defendant relied upon on appeal and the trial court's ruling had not been definitive, and further holding—under plain error review—that the challenged other crimes evidence was properly admitted as relevant to prove the charged offense of conspiracy).
IRE 103(a) is identical to its counterpart federal rule before the latter's amendment solely for stylistic purposes effective December 1, 2011, except for the omission of what was then the last sentence (which constituted the final paragraph) of pre-amended FRE 103(a). That sentence—which excuses the renewal of a contemporaneous trial objection or offer of proof after a "definitive" in limine ruling in all cases—is now in its own subdivision, FRE 103(b), as a result of the December 1, 2011 amendments. The Illinois version of Rule 103(b)—which differs substantively from its federal counterpart—is discussed below in the Author's Commentary on IRE 103(b).
IRE 103(a) provides the requirements for assigning a claim of error in admitting or excluding evidence: (1) the requirement that a substantial right is affected, and (2) the requirement that the error is called to the attention of the trial court, to enable it to take appropriate action, through a timely objection or a motion to strike when evidence is admitted, or through an offer of proof when evidence is excluded. The latter requirement also enables the opposing party to take proper corrective measures when required.
General Principles Related to Objections (IRE 103(a)(1))
"When a party has stated no basis for an objection and the trial court has sustained the objection but provided no reason for its ruling, this court presumes that the trial court ruled on the grounds of relevancy." People v. Boston, 2016 IL App (1st) 133497, ¶ 61, citing People v. Upton, 230 Ill. App. 3d 365, 372 (1992). The same rule applies when the trial court, without providing a basis for its ruling, has overruled an objection that stated no basis. People v. Martin, 2017 IL App (4th) 150021, ¶ 16. For a recent example of an appellate court's application of the rule that both an objection and a ruling made without stating a basis is based on relevancy, see North Spaulding Condominium Assn. v. Cavanaugh, 2017 IL App (1st)...
To continue reading
Request your trial