Rule 402. General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence

Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise: • A federal or state statute; • These rules; or • Other rules applicable in the courts of this state. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.

Committee Notes

Maine Restyling Note [November 2014] There are slight differences in language between the Maine and the Federal Rules. The Federal Rule lists the various other sources of authority. The existing and the restyled Maine versions merely make reference to statutes and "other rules applicable in the courts of this state," which is intended to cover constitutional rules.

Federal Advisory Committee Note The language of Rule 402 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. 402 (February 2, 1976) The general rule that all relevant evidence is admissible is declaratory of Maine law. See, e.g., McCully v. Bessey, 142 Me. 209, 49 A.2d 230 (1946); Turgeon v. Lewiston Urban Renewal Authority, 239 A.2d 173 (Me. 1968). These cases and many others emphasize the extent of the trial judge's discretion. The exceptions make it clear, however, that relevant evidence may be excluded by reason of a statute or a rule. Highly relevant evidence may be excluded by rules based on policy considerations, such as rules of privilege and rules against hearsay. Examples of constitutional limitations are evidence against an accused obtained by unlawful search and seizure and incriminating statements elicited in violation of his right to counsel. These limitations would be binding even if not stated in the rules. They are included for the sake of clarity.