Unless justice requires otherwise, no error in admitting or excluding evidence, or any other error by the court or a party, is ground for granting a new trial, for setting aside a verdict, or for vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order. At every stage of the proceeding, the court must disregard all errors and defects that do not affect any party's substantial rights.
Rule 61.Harmless Error
Group VII: Judgment · Last amended March 1, 2011 · Last verified July 15, 2026
In one sentenceRule 61 tells the court to disregard any error in admitting or excluding evidence, or any other error, unless it affected a party's substantial rights, so a harmless mistake doesn't undo a trial, a verdict, or a judgment.
Full Text of Rule 61
Explanatory Note
Rule 61 was amended, effective March 1, 2011. Rule 61 is identical to Fed.R.Civ.P. 61. Rule 61 was amended, effective March 1, 2011, in response to the December 1, 2007, revision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The language and organization of the rule were changed to make the rule more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 61 is a single, short command that runs through every other rule governing trials and post-trial motions: unless justice requires otherwise, no error in admitting or excluding evidence, and no other error by the court or a party, is by itself grounds for a new trial, for setting aside a verdict, or for vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order. At every stage of a proceeding, the court must disregard errors and defects that don't affect a party's substantial rights.
The rule doesn't excuse real mistakes — it draws a line between an error that changed the outcome and one that didn't. A wrongly admitted exhibit or a misstated instruction that had no bearing on the result isn't enough on its own to reopen a case; the complaining party has to show the mistake mattered to a substantial right. That standard shapes how a court evaluates a Rule 59 motion for a new trial or an objection preserved under Rule 46, and it applies from the earliest pretrial ruling straight through to the final judgment, not just to what happens at trial.
Because Rule 61 applies at every stage, it functions less as an independent basis for relief and more as a filter on the other rules that do provide one. A party seeking a new trial, a corrected judgment, or reversal of a ruling still has to identify the rule that authorizes that remedy — Rule 61 is what a court checks afterward to decide whether the error was serious enough to justify granting it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does it mean for an error to be "harmless" under Rule 61?
It means the error — whether in admitting or excluding evidence or something else — didn't affect a party's substantial rights. Rule 61 requires the court to disregard that kind of error rather than let it be grounds for a new trial or for disturbing a judgment.
Does Rule 61 mean I can't get a new trial over a mistake in the evidence rulings?
Not necessarily. You can still seek a new trial under Rule 59 based on an evidentiary error, but Rule 61 requires that the error have affected your substantial rights before it counts as a valid ground.
How do I know whether an error affected a party's "substantial rights"?
Rule 61 doesn't define the phrase further; it's a case-by-case judgment about whether the error was serious enough to have changed the outcome or fairness of the proceeding, as opposed to a technical misstep with no real consequence.
Does Rule 61 apply only to what happens during trial?
No. The rule states that the court must disregard harmless errors and defects at every stage of the proceeding, so it applies to pretrial rulings and post-trial matters as well as to the trial itself.
How does Rule 61 relate to a motion for a new trial under Rule 59?
Rule 59 supplies the grounds a party can raise, including errors of law occurring at trial. Rule 61 is the standard the court applies to those grounds afterward, screening out any error that didn't affect a substantial right before granting relief.
Source & verification. Rule text and the Explanatory Note are
reproduced verbatim from the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure, adopted by the
Supreme Court of North Dakota. Last verified July 15, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: harmless error rule north dakotand harmless error standarddisregard error substantial rights ndnorth dakota rule 61 evidence error