Sec. 4-3. Exclusion of Evidence on Grounds

Exclusion of Evidence on Grounds

of Prejudice, Confusion or Waste of Time

Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair

prejudice or surprise, confusion of the issues, or

misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue

delay, waste of time or needless presentation of

cumulative evidence.

COMMENTARY

Section 4-3 establishes a balancing test under which the

probative value of proffered evidence is weighed against the

harm likely to result from its admission. See, e.g., State v.

Rinaldi, 220 Conn. 345, 356, 599 A.2d 1 (1991); Farrell v. St.

Vincent’s Hospital, 203 Conn. 554, 563, 525 A.2d 954 (1987);

State v. DeMatteo, 186 Conn. 696, 702–703, 443 A.2d 915

(1982). The task of striking this balance is relegated to the

court’s discretion. E.g., State v. Paulino, 223 Conn. 461, 477,

613 A.2d 720 (1992).

The discretion of a trial court to exclude relevant evidence

on the basis of unfair prejudice is well established. E.g., State

v. Higgins, 201 Conn. 462, 469, 518 A.2d 631 (1986). All

evidence adverse to an opposing party is inherently prejudicial

because it is damaging to that party’s case. Berry v. Loiseau,

223 Conn. 786, 806, 614 A.2d 414 (1992); Chouinard v. Marjani, 21 Conn. App. 572, 576, 575 A.2d 238 (1990). For exclu­

sion, however, the prejudice must be ‘‘unfair’’ in the sense that

it ‘‘unduly arouse[s] the jury’s emotions of prejudice, hostility

ARTICLE IV—RELEVANCY

Sec.

4-1.

Definition of Relevant Evidence

4-2.

Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant

Evidence Inadmissible

4-3.

Exclusion of Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice,

Confusion or Waste of Time

4-4.

Character Evidence Not Admissible To Prove Con­

duct; Exceptions; Methods of Proof; Cross-Exam­

ination of a Character Witness

4-5.

Evidence of Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts Generally Inadmissible

Sec.

4-6.

Habit; Routine Practice

4-7.

Subsequent Remedial Measures

4-8.

Offers To Compromise

4-8A.

Pleas, Plea Discussions and Related Statements

4-9

Prejudice,

Confusion or Waste of Time

4-4.

Character Evidence Not Admissible To Prove Con­

duct; Exceptions; Methods of Proof; Cross-Exam­

ination of a Character Witness

4-5.

Evidence of Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts Generally Inadmissible

Sec.

4-6.

Habit; Routine Practice

4-7.

Subsequent Remedial Measures

4-8.

Offers To Compromise

4-8A.

Pleas, Plea Discussions and Related Statements

4-9.

Payment of Medical and Similar Expenses

4-10.

Liability Insurance

4-11.

Admissibility of Evidence of Sexual Conduct in Crim-

inal Prosecutions

4-12.

Admissibility of Evidence of Victim’s Sexual Behavior in Civil Proceedings Involving Alleged Sex-

ual Misconduct

Sec. 4-1

or sympathy’’; State v. Wilson, 180 Conn. 481, 490, 429 A.2d

931 (1980); or ‘‘tends to have some adverse effect upon [the

party against whom the evidence is offered] beyond tending

to prove the fact or issue that justified its admission into evi-

dence.’’ State v. Graham, 200 Conn. 9, 12, 509 A.2d 493

(1986), quoting United States v. Figueroa, 618 F.2d 934, 943

(2d Cir. 1980).

Common law recognized unfair surprise as a factor to be

weighed against the probative value of the evidence. See,

e.g., State v. Higgins, supra, 201 Conn. 469; State v. DeMat­

teo, supra, 186 Conn. 703. When dangers of unfair surprise

are claimed to outweigh probative value, nothing precludes

the court from fashioning a remedy other than exclusion, e.g.,

continuance, when that remedy will adequately cure the harm

suffered by the opposing party.

Section 4-3 also recognizes the court’s authority to exclude

relevant evidence when its probative value is outweighed by

factors such as confusion of the issues or misleading the jury;

Farrell v. St. Vincent’s Hospital, supra, 203 Conn. 563; see

State v. Gaynor, 182 Conn. 501, 511, 438 A.2d 749 (1980);

State v. Sebastian, 81 Conn. 1, 4, 69 A. 1054 (1908); or

by considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless

presentation of cumulative evidence. See, e.g., State v. Parris,

219 Conn

ue is outweighed by

factors such as confusion of the issues or misleading the jury;

Farrell v. St. Vincent’s Hospital, supra, 203 Conn. 563; see

State v. Gaynor, 182 Conn. 501, 511, 438 A.2d 749 (1980);

State v. Sebastian, 81 Conn. 1, 4, 69 A. 1054 (1908); or

by considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless

presentation of cumulative evidence. See, e.g., State v. Parris,

219 Conn. 283, 293, 592 A.2d 943 (1991); State v. DeMatteo,

supra, 186 Conn. 702–703; Hydro-Centrifugals, Inc. v. Craw-

ford Laundry Co., 110 Conn. 49, 54–55, 147 A. 31 (1929).