Rule 403. Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, orwaste of time

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.

Committee Notes

Advisory Committee’s Notes This rule is identical to its counterpart under the Federal Rules of Evidence. It generally expresses the preexisting common law of Alabama that material and relevant evidence may be excluded when the trial judge determines that the probative value of the evidence is outweighed substantially by other factors, such as the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Valley Mining Corp. v. Metro Bank, 383 So.2d 158 (Ala.1980). See C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 21.01 (4th ed. 1991). The judge is to place the probative value or relevancy of evidence on one side of imaginary scales and its prejudicial impact on the other. When the prejudicial impact substantially outweighs the probative value, then the evidence may be excluded. See, e.g., Otwell v. Bryant, 497 So.2d 111 (Ala.1986) (affirming trial court’s precluding plaintiff from asking defendant physician’s expert if the physician and the expert were insured by the same mutual liability insurance company; prejudice held to outweigh probative value to show bias); Hargress v. City of Montgomery, 479 So.2d 1137 (Ala.1985) (evidence of collateral misconduct excluded because its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its probative value); Ott v. Smith, 413 So.2d 1129 (Ala.1982) (declaring that evidence “of highly prejudicial nature” may be excluded); Sanders v. State, 512 So.2d 809 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987); Jones v. State, 473 So.2d 1197 (Ala.Crim.App.1985) (highly prejudicial). Exclusion based upon the court’s conclusion that the probative value is outweighed by confusion of the issues and misleading the jury finds ample support in preexisting common law. See, e.g., Cherry v. Hill, 283 Ala. 74, 214 So.2d 427 (1968) (describing this confusion-of- the-issues ground of exclusion as precluding the introduction of “foreign matters” into the trial); Lee v. State, 246 Ala. 69, 18 So.2d 70