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
Adopted December 1, 1959 · Last verified July 8, 2026
In one sentenceRule 61 tells courts to disregard any error or defect in a ruling, order, or proceeding that does not affect a party's substantial rights, and to grant a new trial or disturb a judgment only when refusing to act would be inconsistent with substantial justice.
Full Text of Rule 61
Advisory Committee’s Notes & Reporter’s Notes
Reporter's Notes — December 1, 1959
This rule is the same as Federal Rule 61. It is declaratory of Maine law, as reflected by many cases. See, e.g., McCully v. Bessey, 142 Me. 209, 49 A.2d 230 (1946) (admission of evidence); Torrey v. Congress Square Hotel Co., 145 Me. 234, 75 A.2d 451 (1950) (exclusion of evidence); Mencher v. Waterman, 125 Me. 178, 132 A. 132 (1926) (instructions to jury).
Plain-English Summary
No error in admitting or excluding evidence, and no error or defect in any ruling, order, or anything done or left undone by the court or the parties, is grounds for a new trial, setting aside a verdict, or vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order — unless refusing that relief would be inconsistent with substantial justice. At every stage of a case, the court must disregard any error or defect that does not affect the parties' substantial rights.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does every evidentiary mistake at trial justify a new trial?
No, an error in admitting or excluding evidence is grounds for a new trial only if refusing to grant one would be inconsistent with substantial justice.
What is the harmless error rule under Rule 61?
A rule requiring courts, at every stage of a proceeding, to disregard any error or defect that does not affect a party's substantial rights, rather than reversing or disturbing a judgment over a technical misstep.
Does Rule 61 apply only to evidentiary rulings?
No, it applies broadly to any ruling, order, or anything done or omitted by the court or the parties during the proceeding.
Source & verification. The rule text and Advisory Committee’s Notes / Reporter’s
Notes are reproduced verbatim from the official Maine Rules of Civil Procedure (Me. R. Civ. P. 61), prescribed by the
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (4 M.R.S. § 8, the Rules Enabling Act). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 8, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: harmless error Mainesubstantial rights standarddisregarding trial error