Under Rule 403, which factor is a permissible basis for excluding relevant evidence?

Under Rule 403, which factor is a permissible basis for excluding relevant evidence?

• A. Unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
• B. Any prejudice against the party.
• C. Only if the evidence is irrelevant.
• D. Because the evidence would make the trial longer.

Answer: (A)

Rule 403 lets a court exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by certain dangers. Those dangers include unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. This is the exact basis the question is testing: even though evidence is relevant, it can be left out if these risks are present. Why this is the best answer: it specifies the permissible grounds for exclusion under Rule 403—those listed dangers—so the evidence can be kept from unfairly swaying the jurors or bogging down the trial, even if it is probative. Why the other statements don’t fit: excluding solely because there is prejudice against the party is too broad— Rule 403 requires “unfair prejudice” among the listed risks, not any prejudice. Relevance by itself is not the sole determiner; relevant evidence can still be excluded if these dangers apply. Saying the only reason is that the trial would be longer ignores that lengthening the trial is one of the factors weighed, not the exclusive or sole basis for exclusion.

Rule 403 lets a court exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by certain dangers. Those dangers include unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. This is the exact basis the question is testing: even though evidence is relevant, it can be left out if these risks are present.

Why this is the best answer: it specifies the permissible grounds for exclusion under Rule 403—those listed dangers—so the evidence can be kept from unfairly swaying the jurors or bogging down the trial, even if it is probative.

Why the other statements don’t fit: excluding solely because there is prejudice against the party is too broad— Rule 403 requires “unfair prejudice” among the listed risks, not any prejudice. Relevance by itself is not the sole determiner; relevant evidence can still be excluded if these dangers apply. Saying the only reason is that the trial would be longer ignores that lengthening the trial is one of the factors weighed, not the exclusive or sole basis for exclusion.