- 234 -
Rule 160. HARMLESS ERROR
No error in either the admission or exclusion of
evidence, and no error or defect in any ruling or order
or in anything done or omitted by the Court or by any
of the parties, is ground for granting a new trial or
for vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a
decision or order, unless refusal to take such action
appears to the Court inconsistent with substantial
justice. The Court at every stage of a case will
disregard any error or defect which does not affect the
substantial rights of the parties.
Rule 160 is "substantially the same as" rule 61 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See 60 T.C. 1144; see also Fed. R.
Crim. P. 52(a).
In civil cases, an error related to admission of evidence or
attorney misconduct is considered harmless if there is no
prejudicial effect and/or the error did not affect the judgment.
See Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 762 F.2d 753, 761-762 (9th
Cir. 1985); see also Mateyko v. Felix, 924 F.2d 824, 827-828 (9th
Cir. 1991) (new trial is warranted only if misconduct affected
the verdict). The standard of proof in such cases is normally
clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., Bunch v. United
States, 680 F.2d at 1283.
The Supreme Court has adopted a similar standard for
reviewing errors associated with prosecutorial misconduct in
criminal cases. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667
(1985); Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982); United States v.
Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150
(1972); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Napue v. Illinois,
Page: Previous 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011