No error in either the admission or the 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 setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
Rule 61.Harmless Error
Current through June 1, 2026 · Last verified July 10, 2026
In one sentenceRule 61 tells courts to ignore errors in evidence rulings or other proceedings that do not affect a party's substantial rights, so a new trial, a vacated verdict, or a disturbed judgment is warranted only when the mistake is inconsistent with substantial justice.
Full Text of Rule 61
Amendment History
The source reproduced here (current through June 1, 2026) records no amendment to this rule since its original adoption — no Credits line appears for it in the compiled rules. For the underlying adopting order and any later amendments, see the Colorado General Assembly.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 61 sets the baseline for when a mistake in a case matters. An error in admitting or excluding evidence, or any other defect in a ruling, order, or something a party or the court did or failed to do, is not by itself a reason to grant a new trial, set aside a verdict, or disturb a judgment.
The rule asks whether refusing to act would be inconsistent with substantial justice. Courts weigh the error against the outcome of the case, not against procedural formality for its own sake. At every stage, a court must set aside any error or defect that does not affect a party's substantial rights, so a technical misstep with no real impact on the result will not undo an otherwise sound judgment.
Frequently Asked Questions
What makes an error 'harmless' under Rule 61?
An error is harmless when it does not affect a party's substantial rights and refusing to grant relief would not be inconsistent with substantial justice. Courts look at whether the mistake likely changed the outcome, not whether a rule was technically broken.
Does Rule 61 apply to mistakes made by the parties, or only the court?
Both. The rule covers any error or defect in a ruling or order, and anything done or omitted by the court or by any of the parties.
Can Rule 61 excuse an error in admitting or excluding evidence?
Yes. The rule names evidentiary rulings specifically — neither an erroneous admission nor an erroneous exclusion of evidence is grounds for a new trial or for disturbing a judgment unless it is inconsistent with substantial justice.
How does Rule 61 relate to a motion for a new trial?
Rule 61 works alongside the new-trial rule as a check on it: even when a party identifies a real error in the proceedings, Rule 61 requires the court to ask whether the error affected substantial rights before granting a new trial or disturbing the judgment.
Source & verification. The rule text is reproduced verbatim from the
official Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure (Colo. R. Civ. P. 61). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Colorado (C.R.S. § 13-2-108; Colo. Const. art. VI). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 10, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: harmless error rulesubstantial rights standardevidentiary error appealno prejudice no reversalgrounds for new trialdisregard non-prejudicial error