Miss. R. Evid. 403
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.
Miss. R. Evid. 403
Advisory Committee Note
The language of Rule 403 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. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
Relevant evidence may be inadmissible when its probative value is outweighed by its tendency to mislead, to confuse, or to prejudice the jury. If the introduction of the evidence would waste more time than its probative value was worth, then a trial judge may rightly exclude such otherwise relevant evidence. By providing for the exclusion of evidence whose probativeness is outweighed by prejudice, Mississippi is following existing federal and state practice. U.S. v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 497 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. 921, 101 S. Ct. 321, 66 L.Ed.2d 149 (1980). Such a rule also keeps collateral issues from being injected into the case. Hannah v. State, 336 So.2d 1317 (Miss. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1101, 97 S. Ct. 1126, 51 L.Ed.2d 551 (1977); Coleman v. State, 198 Miss. 519, 23 So.2d 404 (1945). This rule also gives the trial judge the discretion to exclude evidence which is merely cumulative. Carr v. State, 208 So.2d 886 (Miss. 1968).
["Advisory Committee Note" substituted for "Comment," effective June 16, 2016; amended July 1, 2016, to note restyling.]