Rule 103. RULINGS ON EVIDENCE

(a)

Preserving a claim of error. A party may claim error in a ruling to

admit or exclude evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of

the party and:

(1)

If the ruling admits evidence, a party, on the record:

(A)

Timely objects or moves to strike; and

(B)

States the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the

context; or

(2)

If the ruling excludes evidence, a party informs the court of its

substance by an offer of proof, unless the substance was apparent

from the context.

(b)

Court’s statement about the ruling; directing an offer of proof. The

court may make any statement about the character or form of the

evidence, the objection made, and the ruling. The court may direct that

an offer of proof be made in question-and-answer form.

(c)

Preventing the jury from hearing inadmissible evidence. To the

extent practicable, the court must conduct a jury trial so that

inadmissible evidence is not suggested to the jury by any means.

(d)

Taking notice of plain error.17 A court may take notice of an obvious

error affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not

properly preserved.

(e)

Effect of pretrial ruling. A pretrial objection to or proffer of evidence

must be timely renewed at trial unless the court states on the record, or

17 The term “plain error” is derived from the Federal Rule. The term “obvious error” is used in

State practice. See State v. Dolloff, 2012 ME 130, ¶ 35, 58 A.2d 1032.

the context clearly demonstrates, that a ruling on the objection or

proffer is final.

Maine Restyling Note [November 2014]

to or proffer of evidence

must be timely renewed at trial unless the court states on the record, or

17 The term “plain error” is derived from the Federal Rule. The term “obvious error” is used in

State practice. See State v. Dolloff, 2012 ME 130, ¶ 35, 58 A.2d 1032.

the context clearly demonstrates, that a ruling on the objection or

proffer is final.

Maine Restyling Note [November 2014]

Maine Rule 103 is substantially similar to Federal Rule 103, with one

small difference. Presently, Maine Rule 103(e) puts the burden on counsel to

renew an objection or offer made in limine or otherwise before the evidence

would be offered at trial, unless the trial judge or the circumstances make it

clear that the previous ruling was indeed final. The Federal Rule (at the end of

old subsection (a) and in new subsection (b)) makes the pretrial ruling final so

that the objection or proffer need not be renewed at trial.

The Maine departure represents a policy choice for Maine. The

proposed restyled Rule 103 embodies this policy choice by carrying over

former Maine Rule 103(e) without a change in language.

Federal Advisory Committee Note

The language of Rule 103 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.

__________________________________________________________________