Opinion ID: 1222110
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hearsay Evidence of Demolition Costs

Text: DURA also contends that it was error to allow a witness to testify to demolition costs as reported to him by others. The commission, however, reserved ruling on this hearsay objection. See section 38-1-105(2), C.R.S.1973. Our review of the record indicates that DURA did not renew its hearsay objection, move to strike the testimony, or insist on a ruling on its prior objection. Accordingly, the objection was waived. See, e.g., United States v. Ward Baking Co., 224 F.Supp. 66, 74 (E.D.Pa. 1963) (if judge reserves decision on ruling it is counsel's responsibility to raise the point again at the close of all the evidence if no ruling was, in fact, made); see also Colorado Springs & Interurban Ry. v. Reese, 69 Colo. 1, 169 P. 572 (1917) (Counsel are officers of the court, and are charged with the duty of guarding it against errors at the trial, and, when they acquiesce in the admission of evidence, may not be permitted, after verdict, to claim that such evidence was improperly admitted to the prejudice of their client) As the record now stands, there was no evidentiary ruling for the trial court or this court to review. It is presumed that the commission based its determination on competent evidence. See Haver v. Motonock, 75 Colo. 301, 255 P. 834 (1924).