# Conn. Code Evid. Sec. 4-3: Sec. 4-3. Exclusion of Evidence on Grounds

> Connecticut · Court rules · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_CT_EVID_R4_3

## Section

- **Citation:** Conn. Code Evid. Sec. 4-3
- **Heading:** Sec. 4-3. Exclusion of Evidence on Grounds
- **Jurisdiction:** Connecticut
- **Kind:** Court rules
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Connecticut Court Rules / Connecticut Code of Evidence / Conn. Code Evid. Sec. 4-3

## Text

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).

## Nearby sections

- [Conn. Code Evid. Sec. 1-1 Sec. 1-1. Short Title; Application](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_CT_EVID_R1_1.md)
- [Conn. Code Evid. Sec. 1-2 Sec. 1-2. Purposes and Construction](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_CT_EVID_R1_2.md)
- [Conn. Code Evid. Sec. 1-3 Sec. 1-3. Preliminary Questions](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_CT_EVID_R1_3.md)
- [Conn. Code Evid. Sec. 1-4 Sec. 1-4. Limited Admissibility](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_CT_EVID_R1_4.md)
- [Conn. Code Evid. Sec. 1-5 Sec. 1-5. Remainder of Statements](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_CT_EVID_R1_5.md)
- [Conn. Code Evid. Sec. 2-1 Sec. 2-1. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_CT_EVID_R2_1.md)
- [Conn. Code Evid. Sec. 2-2 Sec. 2-2. Notice and Opportunity To Be Heard](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_CT_EVID_R2_2.md)
- [Conn. Code Evid. Sec. 3-1 Sec. 3-1. General Rule](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_CT_EVID_R3_1.md)
- [Conn. Code Evid. Sec. 4-1 Sec. 4-1. Definition of Relevant Evidence](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_CT_EVID_R4_1.md)
- [Conn. Code Evid. Sec. 4-2 Sec. 4-2. Relevant Evidence Generally Admis-](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_CT_EVID_R4_2.md)
- [Conn. Code Evid. Sec. 4-3 Sec. 4-3. Exclusion of Evidence on Grounds](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_CT_EVID_R4_3.md)
- [Conn. Code Evid. Sec. 4-4 Sec. 4-4. Character Evidence Not Admissible To Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Methods](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_CT_EVID_R4_4.md)
- [Conn. Code Evid. Sec. 4-5 Sec. 4-5. Evidence of Other Crimes, Wrongs](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_CT_EVID_R4_5.md)
- [Conn. Code Evid. Sec. 4-6 Sec. 4-6. Habit; Routine Practice](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_CT_EVID_R4_6.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_CT_EVID_R4_3. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.