context: Surely, the concept cannot place on the allegedly aggrieved party the burden of demonstrating that the trier of fact would certainly have come to a different conclusion had the evidence been before it. We have also said that the exclusion of particular evidence would not require a new trial where, analyzing the facts, it was most unlikely that the jury would have been affected by the error (if indeed there had been any error).
citation_a.signal: but see
citation_a.identifier: 315 Mass. 59, 65
citation_a.parenthetical: party showing error in exclusion of evidence must also show "reasonable probability of harm"
citation_a.sentence: But see Bendett v. Bendett, 315 Mass. 59, 65 (1943) (party showing error in exclusion of evidence must also show “reasonable probability of harm”).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 150 Mass. 77, 81
citation_b.parenthetical: the erroneous exclusion of evidence requires a new trial "unless it can be seen that, even if it had been admitted and believed, still the verdict" would have been the same
citation_b.sentence: Drake v. Goodman, 386 Mass. 88, 94 (1982). See Daley v. American Printing Co., 150 Mass. 77, 81 (1889) (the erroneous exclusion of evidence requires a new trial “unless it can be seen that, even if it had been admitted and believed, still the verdict” would have been the same).