Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or undue delay is described by which rule?

• A. True; evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, or confusion of the issues, or of misleading the jury.
• B. False; prejudice is never considered in exclusion decisions.
• C. Prejudice is irrelevant to exclusion.
• D. It is excluded only if there is confusion of the issues.

Answer: (A)

The main idea being tested is the Rule 403 balancing concept: even relevant evidence can be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury (and related concerns like delay or cumulative presentation). The statement matches this standard by identifying the grounds for exclusion as unfair prejudice, potential confusion, and misleading the jury, with the emphasis that the court weighs probative value against these dangers. That balance is exactly what Rule 403 requires, so this option is the best fit.

Other choices misstate the rule. Prejudice is a valid ground for exclusion, so saying prejudice is never considered is incorrect. Saying prejudice is irrelevant to exclusion is also wrong. And stating exclusion happens only for confusion of the issues ignores the other valid grounds (unfair prejudice, misleading the jury, and related considerations).