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

(B) States the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context; or

(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) 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.

(c) 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.

(d) Taking notice of plain error. A court may take notice of an obvious error affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly preserved.

(e) Effect of pretrial ruling. A pretrial objection to or proffer of evidence must be timely renewed at trial unless the court states on the record, or the context clearly demonstrates, that a ruling on the objection or proffer is final.

Committee Notes

Maine Restyling Note [November 2014] Maine Rule 103 is substantially similar to Federal Rule 103, with one small difference. Presently, Maine Rule 103(e) puts the burden on counsel to renew an objection or offer made in limine or otherwise before the evidence would be offered at trial, unless the trial judge or the circumstances make it clear that the previous ruling was indeed final. The Federal Rule (at the end of old subsection (a) and in new subsection (b)) makes the pretrial ruling final so that the objection or proffer need not be renewed at trial. The Maine departure represents a policy choice for Maine. The proposed restyled Rule 103 embodies this policy choice by carrying over former Maine Rule 103(e) without a change in language.

Federal Advisory Committee Note The language of Rule 103 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.

Advisers' Note to former M.R. Evid. 103 (February 2, 1976) This rule is declaratory of Maine law. In subdivision (d) the Federal Rule reads "plain error", following F.R. Crim. P. 52(b). "Obvious" is used here to conform to M.R. Crim. P. 52(b), which used that term instead of "plain". M.R.C.P. 61 provides that error "which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties" must be disregarded. There are numerous cases in both Maine and federal courts in which the "obvious" or "plain" error rule has been invoked. There appears to be no difference in treatment by reason of the difference in wording. The power is exercised cautiously and only when necessary to prevent a clear miscarriage of justice. State v. Chaplin, 308 A.2d 873 (Me. 1973).

Advisory Committee Note (April 1, 1998 amendment) This amendment [adding sub-§ (c)] is proposed to conform Maine Rule 103 to a 1997 amendment of the federal counterpart. It is believed that this amendment does not change existing law. See Field and Murray, Maine Evidence (4th ed.) §103.7 at p. 26, State v. Knight, 623 A.2d [1293] (Me. 1993).