OH · rules
Ohio Evid.R. 403
Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Undue Delay
(A) Exclusion mandatory
Although relevant, evidence is not admissible if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues, or of misleading
the jury.
(B) Exclusion discretionary
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative
evidence.
History
Effective Date: July 1, 1980 Amended: July 1, 1996 Staff Note (July 1, 1996 Amendment) Rule 403 Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Undue Delay The amendment modifies the title of the rule to reflect its content. As originally adopted, Evid.R. 403 varied from its federal counterpart by excluding “waste of time” as a separate or independent ground for excluding otherwise relevant and admissible ev idence. The title of the Ohio rule, however, was not modified to reflect this difference between the Ohio and federal texts. The amendment substitutes “undue delay” in place of the original title’s reference to “waste of time” as a ground of exclusion, s o that the title will more accurately reflect the content of the Ohio text. The amendment is intended only as a technical correction; no substantive change is intended.
Provenance
- Source
- supremecourt.ohio.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-14
- Edition
- 2026-09-14
- Content hash
8838ca5ba46e53dc45d1c0cc19b567d40eb1c19a63319a2a11952ea01ca6b199
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.