Rule 61.Harmless error

Trial Rule 61 sets the baseline standard for deciding whether a mistake made during a case matters enough to do something about. The rule works in two directions. First, it tells a court that no error in admitting or excluding evidence, and no other error or defect in a ruling, order, or anything done or left undone by the court or the parties, is grounds for granting a motion to correct errors, setting aside a verdict, disturbing a judgment or order, or reversing on appeal — unless refusing to act would be inconsistent with substantial justice. Second, it instructs every court, at every stage of a case, to disregard any error or defect that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.

In practice, this means a mistake by the judge, a lawyer, or a witness is not enough on its own to unwind a verdict or a judgment. The party pointing to the error has to connect it to something that mattered — an outcome that likely would have gone differently, or a right the error meaningfully undermined. A misstep that had no bearing on the result gets treated as harmless. Indiana’s version of this rule closely tracks the equivalent federal harmless-error rule, and it applies the same way whether the question comes up in the trial court, on a motion to correct error under Rule 59, on a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60, or on appeal.