What does Rule 403 require the court to do with relevant evidence?

• A. Always admit relevant evidence regardless of prejudice.
• B. Exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusing issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
• C. Exclude all evidence that is prejudicial.
• D. Exclude relevant evidence only if it has no probative value.

Answer: (B)

Rule 403 gives the court a gatekeeping role: even if evidence is relevant, it can be kept out if its probative value is substantially outweighed by risks that it would unfairly prejudice the defendant, confuse or mislead the jury, cause undue delay, waste time, or present cumulative evidence. The key idea is balancing usefulness against potential harm to the fairness of the trial. This means highly probative evidence can still be excluded if admitting it would tilt the jury toward an improper conclusion for reasons beyond the facts at issue, such as inflaming emotions or distracting from the central issues. The rule isn’t about admitting all relevant material or excluding all prejudicial material; it’s about weighing these factors and admitting only what the court finds will not unduly prejudice or mislead.