Opinion ID: 2097385
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Failure to Admit Probative Evidence

Text: During trial, the trial justice denied the admission into evidence of a Decision-making Assessment Tool prepared by Dr. Fanning on January 31, 2005, based on an examination of Kathleen performed on May 13, 2004. The trial justice noted that the information provided by [Dr. Fanning] in '05 on [Kathleen's] ability to address financial matters [was] not relevant to her ability to do so in 2001 and 2002, which this physician has already stated that he felt she was capable of doing   . As a result, the trial justice barred admission of the 2005 document on grounds of relevance. We discern no abuse of discretion in the trial justice's ruling. On November 2, 2007, plaintiffs' counsel questioned attorney Mastrati concerning any conversations he may have had with Kathleen about the effect of changes to her estate plan in 2001 and 2002. The trial justice sustained numerous objections to various questions during this portion of Mr. Mastrati's examination. On appeal, plaintiffs challenge the trial justice's exclusion of certain questions allegedly going to Kathleen's knowledge and understanding of the changes being made to her estate plan. [15] It is clear, however, that none of the trial justice's evidentiary rulings during this portion of the trial were an abuse of discretion. Finally, plaintiffs allege that the trial justice erred in refusing to allow them to present a rebuttal case in response to a portion of Mary's trial testimony. At trial, Mary testified that she did not attend Jack's funeral or wake. According to their brief, plaintiffs attempted to present Eugene as a rebuttal witness to testify that Mary told him, at Jack's wake, of Kathleen's determination to attend her brother's funeral, indicating that she would walk to New Hampshire if [Mary] did not drive her there. The trial justice did not allow such testimony on grounds that it was not true rebuttal. As this Court previously has explained, `the proper function and purpose of rebuttal testimony is to explain' or to discredit the evidence of an adverse party. Ruffel v. Ruffel, 900 A.2d 1178, 1190 (R.I.2006) (quoting State v. Kholi, 672 A.2d 429, 433 (R.I.1996)). The admission of evidence, including rebuttal evidence, is a matter confided to the sound discretion of the trial justice. See Ruffel, 900 A.2d at 1190. In the instant case, we discern no abuse of discretion.