The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice,confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
Del. R. Evid. 403
This rule tracks F.R.E. 403.
In Concord Towers, Inc. v. Long, Del. Supr., 348 A.2d 325 (1975), the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that whether the existence of surprise is reversible error depends on whether the surprise is prejudicial.
It is not intended that this rule will change that rule of law. See also Bennett v. State, Del. Supr., 164 A.2d 442 (Supr.1960) and Hoey v. Hawkins, Del. Supr., 332 A.2d 403 (1975).
D.R.E. 403 was amended in 2017 in response to the 2011 restyling of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The amendment is intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in ruling on evidence admissibility.