 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Oberlin v. Akron General Medical Center3/28/2001
nreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Id. at 219-220, 24 O.O.3d at 323, 436 N.E.2d at 1010. See, also, State v. Allen (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 626, 632-633, 653 N.E.2d 675, 683 (abuse-of-discretion standard applies to both Evid.R. 403 and determinations). The majority opinion, however, does not accord the abuse-of-discretion standard proper consideration.
While relevant evidence is presumed admissible under Evid.R. 402, the rules also provide for a determination of admissibility based upon whether the probative value of the evidence sought to be admitted "is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues, or of misleading the jury." Evid.R. 403(A). In this case, the trial judge expressly found that the plaintiffs-appellants had failed to make a sufficient showing to enable the judge to say that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial impact. Given the paucity of information before the trial court, I cannot say that the judge's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Though I might have ruled differently from the trial court, such conjecture is beside the point. See Calderon, 70 Ohio St.2d at 222, 24 O.O.3d at 325, 436 N.E.2d at 1012 ("It is important to remember that the question before this court is not whether the trial court ruled as we would have ruled if confronted with these questions, but whether the court abused its discretion so as to prejudice [the complaining party]").
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
|