See also: APPELLATE REVIEW–Prejudicial Versus Harmless Error
CONVICTIONS–Impeachment: Discretion to Exclude; INJURIES
PHOTOGRAPHS; VIDEOTAPES AND FILMS
WEAPONS.

1.  Generally

Evidence is “prejudicial” to the extent that there is a danger that the evidence will lead the jury to return a verdict that is the product of improper considerations, usually emotional.{footnote}Carter v. Hewitt, 617 F.2d 961 (3d Cir. 1980); Crawford v. Edmundsom, 764 F.2d 479 (7th Cir. 1985); Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Thien, 63 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 1995); Wade v. Haynes, 663 F.2d 778 (8th Cir. 1981); United States v. Bailleaux, 685 F.2d 1105, 1111 (9th Cir. 1982).
State v. Rivera, 599 A.2d 1060, 1064 (Conn. 1991).{/footnote} Evidence is not prejudicial merely because it incriminates the defendant.{footnote}United States v. Figueroa, 618 F.2d 934, 943 (2d Cir. 1980).
State v. Rivera, 599 A.2d 1060, 1064 (Conn. 1991).{/footnote} Since most evidence is prejudicial to some degree, the proper inquiry is whether the evidence is “unfairly” prejudicial.{footnote}Daigle v. Maine Medical Center, Inc., 14 F.3d 684 (1st Cir. 1994)(prelitigation hearing panel findings properly admitted); United States v. Rocha, 916 F.2d 219 (5th Cir. 1990); Crawford v. Edmonson, 764 F.2d 479 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Michaels, 726 F.2d 1307 (8th Cir. 1984).
State v. Woodson, 629 A.2d 386, 395 (Conn. 1993).{/footnote}

This determination should be made outisde the jury’s presence.{footnote}Ruszcyk v. Secretary of Public Safety, 517 N.E.2d 152 (Mass. 1988) (adopting approach of FRE 403).{/footnote}

The trial court has broad discretion to exclude relevant evidence where its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.{footnote} [3301]  FRE 403; Conway v. Icahn & Co., Inc. 16 F.3d 504 (2d Cir. 1993); Construction, Ltd. v. Brooks-Skinner Bldg. Co., 488 F.2d 427 (3d Cir. 1973); Schultz v. Butcher, 24 F.3d 626 (4th Cir. 1994); Ramos v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 615 F.2d 334, 340 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Hans, 684 F.2d 343 (6th Cir. 1982); Minnesota Farm Bureau Mkting Corp. v. North Dakota Agricultural Mkting Assn., Inc., 563 F.2d 906, 911 (8th Cir. 1977); Moran v. H.W.S. Lumber Co., Inc., 538 F.2d 238, 243 (9th Cir. 1976); Abbott Laboratories v. Brennan, 952 F.2d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1991), cert. denied 505 U.S. 1205, 112 S. Ct. 2993, 120 L.Ed.2d 870.

CHECK Contra Bell v. City of Joliet, 83 Ill. App. 3d 103, 403 N.E.2d 740 (3d Dist. 1980) (evidence which is relevant and otherwise admissible not to be exluded on grounds that it may tend to be prejudicial).{/footnote}  There is no automatic requirment that the court exclude evidence which is more prejudicial than probative.{footnote}Williams v. Nebraska State Penitentiary, 57 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 1995)(in inmate’s suit alleging prison’s failure to protect him from attack by inmate, plaintiff’s murder convictions admissible to the extent prison officials were aware of them, to show their assessment of risk to plaintiff).{/footnote}  It has generally been held that the exclusion of relevant evidence as unduly prejudicial is an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly.{footnote}Blancha v. Raymark Industries, 972 F.2d 507 (3d Cir. 1992); United States v. Caldwell, 820 F.2d 1395  (5th Cir. 1987); Westcott v. Crinklaw, 68 F.3d 1073 (8th Cir. 1995); K-B Trucking Co. v. Riss Int’l Corp., 763 F.2d 1148, 1155 (10th Cir.
1985); United States v. Plotke, 725 F.2d 1303, 1308 (11th Cir.), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 843 (1984)).

Check K-B Trucking Co. v. Riss Intl. Corp., 763 F.2d 1148 (10th Cir. 1985); United States v. King, 713 F.2d 627 (11th Cir. 1983).{/footnote}  A limiting instruction may adequately cure the prejudicial effect of evidence so as to allow its admission.{footnote}United States v. Smith, 685 F.2d 1293 (11th Cir. 1982).{/footnote}

Probative value.  One factor which may be considered in weighing the probative value of evidence is the availability of other evidence.{footnote}United States v. Layton, 767 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1985).{/footnote}

2.  Prejudice to Non-Parties

Generally the only prejudice that is relevant is prejudice to the objecting party.{footnote}Bilal v. Lockhart, 993 F.2d 643 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. denied 510 U.S. 924, 114 S.Ct. 326, 126 L.Ed.2d 272.{/footnote} In a criminal case, however, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the complainant.{footnote}United States v. Bear Ribs, 722 F.2d 420, 423 (8th Cir. 1983).  Check 76 ALR Fed 700.{/footnote}  [What does “prejudice” mean in this context–making somebody look bad?  See definition above.]  It has been stated that unfair prejudice against the government is rare, and that the only possible unfair prejudice against the government occurs when the evidence tends to make the jury more likely to find a defendant not guilty despite proof beyond a reasonable doubt.{footnote} State v. Clifford, _____ (Mont. 2005) (exclusion of reverse 404(b) evidence).
But see Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 185 n. 8, 117 S.Ct. 644, 652 n. 8, 136 L.Ed.2d 574, 591 n. 8 (1997) (In dictum, “Some prior offenses, in fact, may even have some potential to prejudice the Government’s case unfairly.”){/footnote}   See, e.g., Old Chief v. United States (1997), 519 U.S. 172, 185 n. 8, 117 S.Ct. 644, 652 n. 8, 136 L.Ed.2d 574, 591 n. 8.

See also SEXUAL HISTORY.

3.  Bench Trials

It is inappropriate to exclude relevant evidence in a bench trial based on the danger of unfair prejudice.{footnote}Schultz v. Butcher, 24 F.3d 626 (4th Cir. 1994).{/footnote}

4.  Impeachment Evidence{footnote}48 ALR Fed. 390.{/footnote}[3310]

5.  Appellate Review

5(a).  Sufficenity of Objection

In keeping with the general rule that an objection must be phrased so as to alert the court to its specific legal basis{footnote}Fed. R. Crim. P. 51.  See OBJECTIONS § 2.  Specificity.{/footnote} unless the basis for the objection is obvious from the context,{footnote}FRE 103(a)(1).  See OBJECTIONS § 2.  Specificity.{/footnote} trial counsel must generally make a specific objection that offered evidence is unduly prejudicial under this rule in order to preserve the issue for review.{footnote}But see State v. Dudley, 912 S.W.2d 525, 527 (Mo. App. 1995) (defense objection that evidence of defendant’s prior crimes  was improper and inflammatory sufficient).{/footnote}

5(b).  Standard on Review

As with issues of admissibility generally, the trial court has wide discretion in balancing the probative value of evidence against the prejudice caused.{footnote}State v. McGraw, 528 A.2d 821, 825 (Conn. 1987); State v. Mallett, 732 S.W.2d 527, 534 (Mo. 1987) (en banc), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 933 (1987). {/footnote}  The court’s ruling will not be reversed unless there was a clear abuse of discretion.{footnote} Corbett v. Borandi, 375 F.2d 265, 270 (3d Cir. 1967) (prejudicial remarks by counsel); United States v. Caldwell, 820 F.2d 1395 (5th Cir. 1987); United States v. Adcock, 651 F.2d 338 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Cowsen, 530 F.2d 734, 738 (7th Cir. ____); United States v.  Wixom, 529 F.2d 217, 220 (8th Cir. 1976); United States v. Moore, 522 F.2d 1068, 1079 (9th Cir. 1975).
State v. Woodson, 629 A.2d 386, 394 (Conn. 1993); State v. McGraw, 528 A.2d 821, 825 (Conn. 1987) (affirming); State v. Balisbana, 924 P.2d 1215, 1220 (Hawaii 1996); State v. Dudley, 912 S.W.2d 525, 529 (Mo. App. 1995) (evidence of defendant’s prior drug conviction held abuse of discretion); McCune v. Leamer, 383 Pa. 434, 437, 119 A.2d 89 (___) (prejudicial remarks by counsel).              CHECK Commonwealth v. Dankel, 301 A.2d 365 (Pa. 1973).

See also United States v. Weiss, 930 F.2d 185 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 842 (1991) ) (abuse of discretion only where trial judge acted arbitrarily or irrationally); United States v. Simpson, 910 F.2d 154 (4th Cir. 1990) (same); Rogers v. Raymark Industries, Inc. 922 F.2d 1426 (9th Cir. 1991)(trial court has considerablel latitude).{/footnote}  The trial court’s decision will not be revered simply because the appellate court would have struck a different balance.{footnote}Rogers v. Raymark Industries, Inc. 922 F.2d 1426 (9th Cir. 1991).{/footnote}  See APPELLATE REVIEW.  The reviewing court must look at excluded evidence in the light most favorable to its proponent, “maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect.”{footnote}United States v. Jamil, 707 F.2d 638 (2d CIr. 1983); United States v. Caldwell, 820 F.2d 1395 (5th Cir. 1987); United States v. Brady, 595 F.2d 359, 361 (6th Cir. 1979).
See also State v. Woodson, 629 A.2d 386, 395 (Conn. 1993) (every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of trial court’s ruling).{/footnote} [is reverse true if admitted?]  An important factor will be the express findings, if any, made on the record by the judge.{footnote}See United States v. Dolliole, 597 F.2d 102 (7th Cir. 1979)(written findings preferred but not mandatory); United States v. Robinson, 530 F.2d 1076 (D.C. 1976).{/footnote}  Indeed, a judge’s failure to state reasons for the decision to exclude may be an abuse of discretion.{footnote}See United States v. Dwyer, 539 F.2d 924 (2d Cir. 1976).{/footnote}