Under Rule 403, when may the court exclude relevant evidence?

• A. When it is not relevant.
• B. When its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time.
• C. When it is hearsay.
• D. When the judge dislikes the evidence.

Answer: (B)

Rule 403 centers on a balancing test. Even if evidence is relevant, the court may exclude it if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or a waste of time. Probative value means how strongly the evidence tends to prove a point in dispute. Unfair prejudice involves the risk that the evidence would arouse the jury’s emotions or bias in a way that overrides rational consideration of the facts. Confusion refers to evidence that would mislead or distract from the real issues, not help resolve them. Waste of time covers evidence that would take up valuable court time without providing meaningful additional insight.

Because of this balancing approach, the rule allows exclusion when the potential prejudicial impact or other harms outweigh the benefit of the evidence’s relevance. The other options don’t fit because relevance is governed by a separate standard, hearsay issues are handled under the hearsay rules and their exceptions rather than a blanket Rule 403 exclusion, and a judge’s personal dislike is not a lawful reason to exclude evidence.