Also known as: MRE 403 · Miss. R. Evid. 403 · Mississippi Rule of Evidence 403 · Rule 403 · 403
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule authorizing a military judge to exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the members, undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
In a court-martial, the prosecution calls nurse Madison to testify about post-operative care. The defense offers Madison's prior felony conviction for diverting medications. The military judge applies M.R.E. 403 and admits the conviction after determining its probative value on credibility is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to the witness.
In a court-martial sentencing proceeding, the defense offers testimony about household items. The military judge applies M.R.E. 403 to bar cumulative testimony about sentimental value that would waste time without affecting any statutory calculation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Thirty days before a court-martial, one party designates deposition excerpts and exhibits. The opposing party files written objections to the exhibits fourteen days later. The military judge applies M.R.E. 403 to consider a late relevance objection that was not waived by the deadline.
The prosecution offers evidence of a prior uncharged assault to prove intent in a current charge. The military judge applies M.R.E. 403 and admits the evidence after finding sufficient evidence from which the members could reasonably find that the accused committed the prior act and that its probative value on intent is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
In a court-martial, a party seeks to introduce evidence about a lost instrument. The military judge applies M.R.E. 403 to exclude cumulative testimony about the instrument's history because its minimal additional probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of confusing the members.
A defendant charged as a felon in possession offers to stipulate to the prior conviction element. The government seeks to introduce the full judgment. The military judge applies M.R.E. 403 and excludes the judgment details because the name and nature of the conviction create unfair prejudice that substantially outweighs its probative value.
M.R.E. 403 permits exclusion when the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the members, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
Supporting sources
Yes. A felony conviction is admissible to impeach a witness in a civil case subject to the M.R.E. 403 balancing test, even when the underlying offense does not involve dishonesty.
Supporting sources
When a defendant offers to stipulate to the prior conviction element, introduction of the full record may result in unfair prejudice that substantially outweighs probative value under M.R.E. 403, particularly when the defendant's status as a felon is the only fact at issue.
Supporting sources
…expert testimony is not per se inadmissible, the district court on remand would nevertheless have discretion to reject it under Rule 403 or 702. Daubert , --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2798. Such a ruling would be reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. One other procedural matter detains us.…