Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

• Library: South Carolina Evidence Annotated (SCBar) (2021 Ed.)

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 substantially 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.

Note:

This rule is identical to the federal rule and is consistent with the law in South Carolina. State v. Alexander, 303 S.C. 377, 401 S.E.2d 146 (1991) (relevant evidence may be excluded where its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice); State v. Hess, 279 S.C. 14, 301 S.E.2d 547 (limitation of defense testimony upheld where it was merely cumulative to other testimony), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 827, 104 S.Ct. 100, 78 L.Ed.2d 105 (1983); State v. Gregory, 198 S.C. 98, 16 S.E.2d 532 (1941) (trial judge properly limited the defendant's presentation of certain evidence to guard against confusion of the jury by the injection of collateral issues).

Annotations Rule 403

Appeal

A court weighing the prejudicial effect of evidence against its probative value must base its determination upon the entire record and upon the particular facts of the case before it. State v. Stephens, 398 S.C. 314, 320, 728 S.E.2d 68, 71-72 (Ct. App. 2012).

The trial court has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence, and its decisions are reversed only when they constitute an abuse of discretion that amounts to an error of law. City of North Myrtle Beach v. East Cherry Grove Realty Co., LLC, 397 S.C. 497, 507, 725 S.E.2d 676, 681 (2012).

Arrest

"Prior to conviction, a defendant is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law. See State v. Posey, 269 S.C. 500, 503, 238 S.E.2d 176, 177 (1977) (declaring such a statement "elementary"). Thus, a mere arrest warrant in no way proved Thomas in fact committed the offense for which he was arrested...." Matter of Campbell, 427 S.C. 183, 193, 830 S.E.2d 14, 19 (2019).

Bad Act

"Evidence of prior bad acts also remains subject to Rule 403, SCRE's probative versus prejudicial balancing test." Vanover v. State, 433 S.C. 31, 856 S.E.2d 160, 165 (Ct. App. 2021), reh'g denied (Apr. 5, 2021).

When the defendant has not been convicted of the prior crime, evidence of the bad act must be clear and convincing. If bad act evidence is clear and convincing and falls within the Rule 404(b) exception, it must nonetheless be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See Rule 403, SCRE (although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice); State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406, 417, 118 S.E. 803, 807 (1923). "Unfair prejudice means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis." State v. Dickerson, 341 S.C. 391, 400, 535 S.E.2d 119, 123 (2000). Finally, the determination of prejudice must be based on the entire record, and the result will generally turn on the facts of each case. State v. Simmons, 384 S.C. 145, 682 S.E.2d 19, 26 (Ct. App. 2009).

State v. Kirton, 381 S.C. 7, 671 S.E.2d 107 (Ct. App. 2008).

Blood Alcohol

Blood alcohol was inadmissible because insufficient evidence linked intoxication to the second accident, making the evidence substantially more prejudicial than probative. Johnson v. Horry County Solid Waste Authority, 389 S.C. 528, 698 S.E.2d 835 (Ct. App. 2010).

Burden on Opponent

The burden is "on the opponent of the evidence to establish inadmissibility" under Rule 403. State v. Hopkins, 431 S.C. 560, 571, 848 S.E.2d 368, 373 (Ct. App. 2020).

"Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially 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." Rule 403, SCRE. "Unfair prejudice means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis." State v. Wiles, 383 S.C. 151, 158, 679 S.E.2d 172, 176 (2009). Rule 403, SCRE, has sometimes been misstated, incorrectly providing that for evidence to be admissible under a Rule 403 analysis the probative value of evidence must substantially outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant, whereas "[t]he correct test is the opposite: whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." State v. King, 424 S.C. 188, 200 n.6, 818 S.E.2d 204, 210 n.6 (2018). The misstated test "incorrectly places the burden on the proponent of the evidence to establish admissibility, while the proper test places the burden on the opponent of the evidence to establish inadmissibility" under Rule 403. State v. Sledge, 428 S.C. 40, 55, 832 S.E.2d 633, 641 (Ct. App. 2019).

Rule 403, SCRE, is sometimes misstated. See, e.g., State v. Wallace, 384 S.C. 428, 435, 683 S.E.2d 275, 278-79 (2009) (incorrectly noting that for evidence to be admissible under a Rule 403 analysis, "[t]he probative value of evidence falling within one of the Rule 404(b) exceptions must substantially outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant"). The correct test is the opposite: whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The test described in Wallace incorrectly places the burden on the proponent of the evidence to establish admissibility, while the proper test places the burden on the opponent of the evidence to establish inadmissibility. State v. King, 424 S.C. 188, 200, 818 S.E.2d 204, 210 (2018) n. 6, reh'g denied (Sept. 21, 2018).

Computer-Generated Evidence

"[T]he probative value of the animation must substantially outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury under Rule 403, SCRE." Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 387, 529 S.E.2d 528, 538 (2000).

Confusing The Jury

"[E]ven if an expert's testimony is admissible under the rules, the trial court may exclude the testimony if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of, among other things, unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury." Wilson v. Rivers, 357 S.C. 447, 452, 593 S.E.2d 603, 605 (2004).

Criminal Defendant's Right

"State may not bootstrap improper character evidence into admissible testimony by simply claiming it is offered to authenticate other evidence. This is especially true when the State can overcome the low threshold of authentication with otherwise admissible evidence such as a stipulation or, as discussed above, under Rule 901(b)(7)." State v. Lawson, 424 S.C. 51, 62, 817 S.E.2d 509, 515 (Ct. App. 2018), reh'g denied (Aug. 16, 2018).

Regardless of whether a defendant's decision to testify is to his own detriment, "it 'must be honored out of that respect for the individual which is the lifeblood of the law.' It is true that "well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury." Holmes, 547 U.S. at 326. It is also true "that the Constitution permits judges 'to exclude evidence that is repetitive, only marginally relevant' or poses an undue risk of 'harassment, prejudice, or confusion of the issues.'" Id. However, it is also clear that "the Constitution...prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends they are asserted to promote...."" State v. Rivera, 402 S.C. 225, 741 S.E.2d 694, 704-05 (2013).

Emotional

"Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it has an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis, such as an emotional one." State v. Hopkins, 431 S.C. 560, 571, 848 S.E.2d 368, 373 (Ct. App. 2020).

Generally

"Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice...