 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hocevar v. Rao12/3/1998
ts. Counsel for plaintiffs did not present testimony from the other passenger or proffer outside the hearing of the jury any testimony concerning the alleged injuries of the two occupants of the dump truck other than Raymond Hocevar.
The Ohio Supreme Court has specifically held that to preserve a claim of error concerning the grant of a motion in limine, the aggrieved party must seek to introduce the evidence at trial by proffer or otherwise. State v. Grubb (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 199:
At trial it is incumbent upon a defendant, who has been temporarily restricted from introducing evidence by virtue of a motion in limine, to seek the introduction of the evidence by proffer or otherwise in order to enable the trial court to make a final determination as to its admissibility and to preserve any objection on the record for purposes of appeal. Id.at syllabus paragraph two.
This requirement enables the court, with concrete knowledge of all the circumstances of the case, to correct any error in its prior preliminary pretrial ruling and thus to make a final determination concerning admissibility of the evidence at trial.
The record in this case expressly reveals that the trial court's pretrial ruling was preliminary and subject to reexamination upon more complete development of the record at trial. (Tr. 16.) The record unambiguously shows, however, that plaintiffs failed to seek a more informed final ruling concerning admissibility of the disputed evidence by introducing the challenged evidence or proffering the proposed testimony at trial. As in Grubb, plaintiff's failure to do so precludes any claim of error on appeal.
Even if plaintiffs had preserved this claim, however, it is well established that a trial court's determination whether to admit or exclude evidence will not be reversed on appeal absent a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion. O'Brien v. Angley (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 159, 163. As a result of our review, we conclude that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate either an abuse of discretion or any resulting prejudice.
Evidence Rule 403(A) specifically mandates that evidence be excluded when its probative value is outweighed by its tendency to confuse the issues or mislead the jury. We agree with plaintiffs that the injuries allegedly suffered by the two passengers were indirectly relevant in this case. However, we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence concerning these alleged injuries.
To constitute an abuse of discretion, the trial court's ruling must be arbitrary, unreasonable and so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic as to indicate perversity, passion, or prejudice. Nakoff v. Fairview General Hosp. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 254, 256. The trial court's determination to exclude evidence relating to two other alleged collateral injuries does not satisfy this stringent standard. The trial court could properly conclude that permitting testimony concerning the injuries the two other passengers claimed to have would open up a sink hole the case could easily fall into, for defense counsel would probably challenge these injuries and thus this line of questioning would open up collateral issues. The court could properly refuse to be led down two more garden paths. Such evidence tends to distract the jury from the central issue in this case the extent of Raymond Hocevar's injury .
Under the circumstances, the trial court could properly find that the excluded evidence would unduly confuse the issues or mislead the jury. The fact that another judge or the appellate court might have reached a different conclusion than that of the trial court does not establish that the
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|