Rule 61 HARMLESS ERROR.

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

Rule 61. Harmless Error.

No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the court or by any of the parties is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, "Judgment: Rules 54-63", see 23 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 581 (1951). For article, "The Applicability of the Rules of Evidence in Non-Jury Trials", 24 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 480 (1952).

A substantial right is one which relates to the subject matter and not to a matter of procedure and form. Sowder v. Inhelder, 119 Colo. 196, 201 P.2d 533 (1948); Corbin by Corbin v. City & County of Denver, 735 P.2d 214 (Colo. App. 1987).

Lack of adherence to formalities which do not result in prejudice should not interfere with the determination of the issues on the merits. Swan v. Zwahlen, 131 Colo. 184, 280 P.2d 439 (1955).

Allowing fewer peremptory challenges than authorized, or than available to and exercised by the opposing party, is reviewed in accordance with this rule. Laura A. Newman, LLC v. Roberts, 2016 CO 9, 365 P.3d 972 (overruling Denver City Tramway Co. v. Kennedy, 50 Colo. 418, 117 P. 167 (1911); Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Langden, 532 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1975); and Blades v. DaFoe, 704 P.2d 317 (Colo. 1985)).

A new trial will not be granted for error which did not prejudice or harm the party seeking a new trial, or where the trial resulted in substantial justice. Francis v. O'Neal, 127 Colo. 432, 257 P.2d 973 (1953); Tincombe v. Colo. Const. & Supply Corp., 681 P.2d 533 (Colo. App. 1984).

To the extent there was any error in judge's comments that defendant was "playing games" by filing motions for recusal, such error was harmless where defendant filed a subsequent motion for recusal which included the arguments made in the previous recusal motions and the subsequent motion was decided. Moody v. Corsentino, 843 P.2d 1355 (Colo. 1993).

Error in admission of immaterial evidence is not prejudicial where the findings are not based on, nor related to, any of the immaterial matter. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co. v. State, 179 Colo. 223, 499 P.2d 1176 (1972).

Violation of...