 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Morra v. Harrop3/6/2002
ld to the "contemporaneous objection" rule, requiring a party to make known to the court, at the time a ruling is sought, the basis for the request. This Court will not review objections to the admission of evidence that were not preserved by a specific objection "'sufficiently focused so as to call the trial justice's attention to the basis for said objection.'" State v. Toole, 640 A.2d 965, 972 (R.I. 1994). " ssues that present themselves at trial and that are not preserved by a specific objection * * * 'sufficiently focused so as to call the trial justice's attention to the basis for said objection, may not be considered on appeal.'" Tinney v.Tinney, 770 A.2d 420, 433 (R.I. 2001) (quoting State v. Anderson, 752 A.2d 946, 948 (R.I. 2000)). However, Rule 46 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure recognizes that once a potential error has been brought to the attention of the trial justice and overruled, a continuing objection may be granted by the court, thereby making it unnecessary "for the party to repeat the objection thereafter, but every part of such testimony thereafter introduced shall be deemed to have been duly objected to and the objection overruled." The "continuing objection," therefore, facilitates more orderly and efficient proceedings at trial by serving the purposes of the "contemporaneous objection" rule, while making it unnecessary for the objecting party to interrupt the trial at every turn to preserve an issue for appellate review. The purpose of the "continuing objection" is not, however, to leave an issue open for a determination of admissibility at a later point during the trial. The evidence had been admitted over objection; counsel may not later seek to waylay an unsuspecting party with a motion to strike an entire line of testimony. The plaintiff had every right to rely on the fact that the trial justice had allowed Dr. Sharp's opinion into evidence. Counsel could reasonably expect to conclude the case comfortable with the knowledge that he had presented sufficient evidence on this vital element of the claim. If the testimony was erroneously admitted then the trial justice has committed an error of law. It is for this Court, on appeal, to pass upon that error of law. The function of the "continuing objection" is not to effectively buy time otherwise unavailable to trial counsel for later deliberations on the admissibility of evidence. As noted, Dr. Sharp's testimony was stricken on the fifth day of trial and after plaintiff had presented three more witnesses. To strike the testimony of a key witness at such a late phase in the trial, and after his testimony had been unconditionally admitted is a misuse of the "continuing objection" and an abuse of the trial justice's discretion.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, the plaintiff's appeal is sustained, the judgment of the Superior Court is vacated, and the papers in the case are remanded to the Superior Court for a new trial consistent with this opinion.
JUSTICES: Williams, C.J., Lederberg, Bourcier, Flanders, and Goldberg, JJ.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|