 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pittman v. Pittman3/10/2000
e admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the court or by any of the parties is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
With that rule in mind, we held that the trial cour's error was harmless because the appellant failed to show that, given more time, she could have presented something not already presented. 708 P.2d at 422.
In the case before us, the wife claims that the trial court should have afforded her a chance to refute the husban's version of their marital finances. However, she does not specify what additional evidence she would have presented. She offered thirty-one exhibits at trial, twenty-nine of which were admitted. On the basis of the descriptions in the record, the two exhibits refused would not conceivably have altered the outcome had they been admitted. In her opening statement, the wif's counsel spoke of only one nonparty witness, and the record contains a subpoena for only that witness. The wif's counsel said the witness would testify that the wife worked on the coupl's properties. Because both Pittmans testified that the wife worked on the properties, a third recitation of the same fact would have been cumulative.
Because neither the record nor the wif's brief points us to specific material evidence the wife could have presented if she were given more time, we hold that the trial court committed harmless error when it halted the trial. When an error at trial is harmless, we will not reverse. Hall, 708 P.2d at 422.
Affirmed.
|