Evid R 403 Essay

D. Ohio’s Evid.R. 403

Unlike its federal counterpart, the Ohio evidentiary rule 403 is separated into two sections: (a) mandatory exclusion and (b) discretionary exclusion. Even relevant evidence “is not admissible” when the probative value is substantially outweighed by evidence that (i) is unfairly prejudicial, (ii) confuses the issues, or (iii) misleads the jury. This clear language promulgated by the Ohio rule-makers establishes greater protections for defendants, and strips trial courts of their discretion in certain evidentiary matters. “The underlying premise of the Rule is that certain relevant evidence should not be admitted to the trier of fact where the admission would have an adverse impact upon the effectiveness or integrity of the fact finding process.”

“Logically, all evidence presented by a prosecutor is prejudicial, but not all evidence unfairly prejudices a defendant. It is only the latter that Evid.R. 403 prohibits.” Evidence crosses the threshold of mere prejudice, and becomes unfair and therefore deserving of mandatory exclusion “if the evidence arouses the jury's emotional sympathies, evokes a sense of horror, or appeals to an instinct to punish, the evidence may be unfairly prejudicial. Usually, although not always, unfairly prejudicial evidence appeals to the jury's emotions rather than intellect.”

Before these cases are mentioned, it is important to note that unlike Ohio—whose state evidentiary rules provide greater protections to defendants—Indiana’s evidence rule 403 has no such variation from the FRE 403. Despite this similarity, Indiana chose to extend Old Chief beyond the realm of felon status, specifically to situations that are functionally equivalent to the issue present in Old Chief. This same reasoning led to a bifurcation requirement when a defendant has been charged as a habitual offender, or other sentencing