No error in either the admission or exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted 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 amounts to the denial of a substantial right.
Rule 61.Harmless error.
Last verified July 3, 2026
In one sentenceRule 61 excuses harmless error, denying a new trial or a disturbed judgment for any evidentiary or procedural misstep unless it cost a party a substantial right.
Full Text of Rule 61
Amendment History
(1967, c. 954, s. 1.)
Plain-English Summary
Rule 61 protects a judgment from being undone over a mistake that didn't matter. No error in admitting or excluding evidence, and no error or defect in any ruling, order, or in anything a party did or left undone, is grounds for a new trial, for setting aside a verdict, or for vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order -- unless refusing to grant that relief would deny a substantial right.
The rule places the burden on the complaining party: showing that a mistake occurred isn't enough on its own. The party must show the mistake affected a substantial right, meaning it stood a real chance of changing the outcome. An error that meets that standard remains correctable -- through a motion for a new trial or to amend a judgment under Rule 59, a motion for relief under Rule 60, a motion for judgment under Rule 50, a motion for additional findings under Rule 52(b), or an appeal.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does every mistake at trial entitle the losing party to a new trial?
No. Rule 61 denies relief for an error or defect in a ruling, order, or anything a party did or left undone, unless refusing relief would deny a substantial right.
Who has to show that a trial error mattered?
The party complaining of the error. Rule 61 puts the burden on that party to show the mistake affected a substantial right, not merely that a mistake occurred.
What can a party do about an error that did affect a substantial right?
Pursue it through a motion under Rule 50, 52(b), 59, or 60, or through an appeal -- Rule 61 only screens out the errors that didn't matter.
Source & verification. The rule text and history citation are reproduced verbatim from the
official North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 1A (N.C. R. Civ. P. 61). Enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly (S.L. 1967, c. 954, codified at N.C.G.S. § 1A-1). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 3, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: harmless error standardsubstantial rightprejudicial errorreversible errorno new trial for technical errorburden of showing prejudicedenial of a substantial right