Rule 61.Harmless Error
Part VII. Judgment · Last verified September 4, 2026
Full Text of Rule 61
Plain-English Summary
Rule 61 is identical to its civil counterpart and runs to two sentences. It is the filter every other rule in this Part passes through.
The first sentence sets the bar. No error in 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 party, is ground for granting a new trial, setting aside a verdict, or vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order — unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice.
Note how the test is framed. It does not ask whether there was error, and it does not ask whether the error was serious. It asks whether declining to act would be inconsistent with substantial justice. The burden of the inquiry sits on the consequence, not on the mistake.
The second sentence points forward rather than back, and it is mandatory: 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. That is a duty during the case, not only a standard on review.
Rule 46 is the companion at the other end — it removes the need for a formal exception, so long as the party made the desired action or the objection and its grounds known at the time.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the standard for harmless error?
Rule 61 provides that no error in the admission or exclusion of evidence, and no error or defect in any ruling, order, act or omission by the court or the parties, is ground for disturbing a judgment unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice.
Does the court have to ignore harmless errors during the case?
Yes. Rule 61 requires the court at every stage of the proceeding to disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
Do I still need to object at trial?
Rule 46 removes the need for a formal exception where a stenographer is present or a recording is made, but it requires the party, at the time the ruling is made or sought, to make known to the court the action desired or the objection and the grounds for it.
Does Rule 61 apply to a motion for a new trial?
Its terms reach the granting of a new trial, the setting aside of a verdict, and the vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing of a judgment or order.