Opinion ID: 2318897
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admissibility of Audit Report

Text: At trial, S. James Busam (Busam), Marshall's vice president for business development and the Marshall executive in charge of the Pizzitola project, testified that the total unpaid construction cost was $1,209,562.41. Brown then sought to impeach his testimony by referring to a portion of Marshall's fiscal 1989 audited financial statement (audit report) to show that Marshall's losses were significantly less than the million-dollar figure. The trial justice decided that the report was inadmissible absent an adequate foundation, that is, the expert testimony of an accountant. It is well established that `the admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial justice, and this Court will not interfere with the trial justice's decision unless a clear abuse of that discretion is apparent.' Bourdon's, Inc. v. Ecin Industries, Inc., 704 A.2d 747, 758 (R.I.1997) (quoting Soares v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 692 A.2d 701, 701-02 (R.I.1997)). Furthermore, this standard is applicable to a trial justice's determinations with respect to both the relevancy of proffered evidence and the adequacy of the foundation laid for its admission. Bourdon's, Inc., 704 A.2d at 758 (citing Montecalvo v. Mandarelli, 682 A.2d 918, 927 (R.I.1996) and Puccio v. Diamond Hill Ski Area, Inc., 120 R.I. 28, 38, 385 A.2d 650, 656 (1978)). If Brown had its way, Busam would have been allowed to explain the inconsistency between the figures contained in the audit report and his previous testimony. Rule 701 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence provides that lay witness testimony in the form of opinions is limited to those opinions that are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. This rule does not allow lay witnesses to opine on subjects that require expertise. See Hicks v. Vennerbeck & Clase Co., 525 A.2d 37, 42 (R.I.1987) (citing Donahue v. Washburn Wire Co., 492 A.2d 152, 153 (R.I.1985) (excluding testimony offered by lay witness regarding complicated medical causation issue)). Technical opinions, such as those required by the audit report in this case, may be better introduced by an expert pursuant to Rule 702. The trial justice was concerned about the jury's ability to understand the audit report, absent the explanation of an expert. Therefore, he advised Brown's attorney that he would reconsider the admissibility of the report, to impeach Busam, if counsel secured the appropriate expert. The decision of the trial justice was an acceptable exercise of his discretion. Brown argues that the report is admissible under either the business records exception to hearsay, Rule 803(6), or as a non-hearsay admission pursuant to Rule 801(d)(2) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence. However, neither the trial justice nor Marshall's attorney were concerned about the audit report's hearsay implications. Admissibility pursuant to one evidence rule does not automatically bar exclusion under a separate rule. In this case, the complicated nature of the evidence permitted the trial justice to exclude the evidence, while giving Brown the option to later call an expert.