Opinion ID: 662080
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Admit Rebuttal Evidence

Text: 24 Warrior Fleet claims that the district court committed reversible error by refusing to admit rebuttal evidence offered by the defendant after the closing arguments. What Warrior Fleet claims to be rebuttal evidence, however, is merely a rehash of the same testimony offered by the same witness who testified during the presentation of Warrior Fleet's defense. 25 Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be reversed absent some prejudice. McGonigle v. Combs, 968 F.2d 810, 818 n. 6 (9th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 113 S.Ct. 399 (1992); Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 601 (9th Cir.1991) (The district court has broad discretion in deciding what constitutes proper rebuttal evidence.) Even if the district court committed error in excluding certain evidence, in order to reverse we must say that more probably than not, the error tainted the verdict. Kisor v. Johns-Manville Corp., 783 F.2d 1337, 1340 (9th Cir.1986). 26 The district court has discretion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403, to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed ... by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. In view of the repetitive nature of the rebuttal evidence offered by Warrior Fleet, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by excluding Runyon's testimony or that Warrior Fleet suffered any prejudice as a result. 27