SC · rules
SCRE 403
Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of
TIME
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of
undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
Note:
This rule is identical to the federal rule and is consistent with the law in South Carolina.
State v. Alexander, 303 S.C. 377, 401 S.E.2d 146 (1991) (relevant evidence may be
excluded where its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice); State v. Hess, 279 S.C. 14, 301 S.E.2d 547 (limitation of defense testimony
upheld where it was merely cumulative to other testimony), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 827,
104 S.Ct. 100, 78 L.Ed.2d 105 (1983); State v. Gregory, 198 S.C. 98, 16 S.E.2d 532 (1941)
(trial judge properly limited the defendant's presentation of certain evidence to guard
against confusion of the jury by the injection of collateral issues).
Provenance
- Source
- www.sccourts.org
- Retrieved
- 2026-10-02
- Edition
- supplied-sc-04-print-version-2026-10-02
- Content hash
f650d6c9825cc65c9b002b0594d4d6d3657f6b70b7afb74aa48b3ace31eda89b
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.