Opinion ID: 185410
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of Impeachment Testimony

Text: 14 Stevenson's third argument involves another evidentiary ruling. At the conclusion of Officer Hill's testimony, Stevenson's counsel sought to cross-examine Hill about an incident in which Hill submitted a false report and was subsequently suspended from the D.C. Police Department for 20 days. JA 375. The District objected, asserting that the incident had to do with Hill's failure to comply with a superior's orders and was irrelevant. The District requested that the court examine the report and determine its admissibility. After doing so, the court sustained the District's objection. Stevenson's counsel did not renew any attempt to cross-examine Hill about the incident. Stevenson contends the court's ruling was error. 15 Although the transcript reflects the exchange described above, the challenged report was not proffered into evidence. Nor does the record manifest that Stevenson was improperly barred from pursuing cross-examination and therefore we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in sustaining the District's objection. See Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 116 (1943) (Mere 'technical errors' which do not 'affect the substantial rights of the parties' are not sufficient to set aside a jury verdict in an appellate court. 40 Stat. 1181, 28 U.S.C. 391. He who seeks to have a judgment set aside because of an erroneous ruling carries the burden of showing that prejudice resulted.). Accordingly, the district court's decision on this point stands. 16 For the foregoing reasons, the district court's judgment is 17 Affirmed.