Miss. R. Evid. 103

As amended through March 21, 2024

Rule 103 - Rulings on Evidence

(a)Preserving a Claim of Error. A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of the party and:

(1) if the ruling admits evidence, a party, on the record:

(A) timely objects or moves to strike; and

(B) states the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context; or

(2) if the ruling excludes evidence, a party informs the court of its substance by an offer of proof, unless the substance was apparent from the context.

(b)Continuing Objection. The court may allow a continuing objection to evidence of the same or similar nature or subject to the same or similar objection.

(c) Definitive Rulings. Once the court rules definitively on the record either before or at trial:

(1) a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal;

(2) an objecting party does not waive or forfeit a claim of error by offering evidence of a conviction the court held admissible; and

(3) a party preserves a claim of error in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence only if each condition of the ruling is fulfilled at trial.

(d)Court's Statement About the Ruling; Directing an Offer of Proof. The court may make any statement about the character or form of the evidence, the objection made, and the ruling. The court may direct that an offer of proof be made in question-and-answer form.

(e)Preventing the Jury from Hearing Inadmissible Evidence. To the extent practicable, the court must conduct a jury trial so that inadmissible evidence is not suggested to the jury by any means.

(f) Taking Notice of Plain Error. A court may take notice of a plain error affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly preserved.

Miss. R. Evid. 103

Restyled eff. 7/1/2016.

Advisory Committee Note

The language of Rule 103 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. The provisions concerning preserving a claim of error and continuing objections - formerly combined in a single paragraph - now appear in separate subdivisions. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.

Rule 103 concerns the making of an evidentiary record for purposes of appeal.

(a) Subsection (a) reflects existing Mississippi practice. (1) The objection must state the specific ground of objection unless the specific ground is apparent from the context. This adopts and carries forward the approach taken in Murphy v. State, 453 So.2d 1290, 1293-1294 (Miss. 1984). (2) By the same token, when a party objects to the exclusion of evidence, he must make an offer of proof to the court, noting on the record for the benefit of the appellate court what evidence the trial judge excluded. See Brown v. State, 338 So.2d 1008 (Miss. 1976); King v. State, 374 So.2d 808 (Miss.1979). Federal Rule of Evidence 103, which is identical, has been interpreted to have no effect on the harmless error principle.

Subsection (a) also retains the existing practice of recognizing continuing objections, where allowed by the trial judge, as a viable means of preserving a point for appeal. See Hughes v. State, 470 So.2d 1046, 1048 n. 1 (Miss. 1985).

Harris v. Buxton T.V., Inc., 460 So.2d 828 (Miss. 1984) held that no offer of proof was necessary where a party was improperly prohibited from cross-examining a witness. Rule 103(a)(2) does not affect this holding.

(b) Rule 103(b) is consistent with pre-rule Mississippi case law which provided that a trial judge was entitled to explain his rulings. Ratliff v. State, 313 So.2d 386 (Miss. 1975); Ladnier v. State, 273 So.2d 169 (Miss. 1973).

The court may also permit the aggrieved party to preserve the record by dictating into the record a statement of the evidence offered but excluded. This accords with the rule announced in such cases as Murray v. Payne, 437 So.2d 47, 55 (Miss. 1983).

(c) Subsection (c) is an attempt to protect the jury from exposure to inadmissible evidence. It conforms to Mississippi practice. See Cutchens v. State, 310 So.2d 273 (Miss. 1975).

(d) Subsection (d), regarding plain error, is a restatement of that doctrine as it existed in pre-rule practice. It reflects a policy to administer the law fairly and justly. A party is protected by the plain error rule when (1) he has failed to perfect his appeal and (2) when a substantial right is affected. Miss.Sup.Ct.R. 6(b) and 11 permit a plain error rule: "The Court may, at its own option, notice a plain error not assigned or distinctly specified." See also Boyd v. State, 204 So.2d 165 (Miss. 1967). If a party persuades the court of the substantial injustice that would occur if the rule were not invoked, the court may invoke the rule. See Edwards v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 512 F.2d 276 (5th Cir. 1975). The plain error rule may be applied in either criminal cases or civil cases. See House v. State, 445 So.2d 815 (Miss. 1984).

["Advisory Committee Note" substituted for "Comment," effective June 16, 2016; amended effective July 1, 2016.]

.