Me. R. Evid. 103
*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.
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.
.