Tex. R. Evid. 103

Rulings on Evidence

sha256 a56d515672c98a962fd8900d59d1aa5d… · retrieved 7/15/2026, 8:29:32 PM · Supreme Court of Texas official rules PDF — txcourts.gov, verbatim · verified 8/5/2026 by TXEV-1 July reconcile (artifact-proven, dual-sourced)

Rule 103. Rulings on Evidence
(a) Preserving a Claim of Error. A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude
evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of the party and:
(1) if the ruling admits evidence, a party, on the record:
(A) timely objects or moves to strike; and
(B) states the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context; or
(2) if the ruling excludes evidence, a party informs the court of its substance by an offer
of proof, unless the substance was apparent from the context.
(b) Not Needing to Renew an Objection. When the court hears a party’s objections outside
the presence of the jury and rules that evidence is admissible, a party need not renew an
objection to preserve a claim of error for appeal.
(c) Court’s Statement About the Ruling; Directing an Offer of Proof. The court may make
any statement about the character or form of the evidence, the objection made, and the
ruling. The court must allow a party to make an offer of proof as soon as practicable. In a
jury trial, the court must allow a party to make the offer outside the jury’s presence and
before the court reads its charge to the jury. At a party’s request, the court must direct that
an offer of proof be made in question-and-answer form. Or the court may do so on its own.
(d) Preventing the Jury from Hearing Inadmissible Evidence. To the extent practicable,
the court must conduct a jury trial so that inadmissible evidence is not suggested to the jury
by any means.
(e) Taking Notice of Fundamental Error in Criminal Cases. In criminal cases, a court may
take notice of a fundamental error affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error
was not properly preserved.
Notes and Comments
Comment to 1998 change: The exception to the requirement of an offer of proof for matters that
were apparent from the context within which questions were asked, found in paragraph (a)(2), is
now applicable to civil as well as criminal cases.

Verbatim from the official publication; the only normalization is removal of the publisher's page headers. Verify against the official source for filing-critical use — court publications change without notice.