Opinion ID: 1925518
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Exclusion of Defendant's Medical Records

Text: At the conclusion of the state's case, the trial justice asked defense counsel whether he was going to present a defense, to which counsel replied I had essentially two exhibits    and that's it for the defense. After an untranscribed bench conference, the court recessed for lunch. One of the exhibits that defendant sought to introduce consisted of various records of Rhode Island Hospital pertaining to the medical treatment of defendant for gunshot wounds to his chest and left hand in August 2000. After reviewing the medical records during the lunch break, the trial justice excluded them from the evidence on the grounds that they had no relevance to the case, and, even if they did, any probative value would be outweighed by the confusion to the jury. The defendant then immediately rested, making no offer of proof on the record and presenting no witnesses. On appeal, however, defendant asserts that the hospital records were indeed relevant, if not crucial, to his defense that given the nature of the injuries to his left hand, he was physically incapable of administering the assaults described by Tanny Eisom and Slade Edmonds. He maintains, therefore, that the trial justice abused his discretion by excluding them. Determinations of the relevancy of evidence offered at trial are within the sound discretion of the trial justice. State v. Marini, 638 A.2d 507, 516 (R.I. 1994). The exclusion of evidence on grounds of relevancy does not constitute reversible error unless the trial justice (1) abused his or her discretion, and (2) thereby caused substantial injury to the party seeking admission of such evidence. State v. Calitri, 459 A.2d 478, 480 (R.I. 1983). With respect to the substantial injury inquiry, the question to be addressed is whether the rejected evidence reasonably could have altered the result. State v. Burke, 522 A.2d 725, 730 (R.I. 1987). Proffered evidence is considered probative and relevant `when it renders the existence of the fact sought to be proven more or less probable than it would have been without the evidence.' State v. Wilding, 740 A.2d 1235, 1242 (R.I.1999) (quoting State v. Kaner, 463 A.2d 1348, 1351 (R.I.1983)); see also R.I.R. Evid. 401. We are well satisfied that the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in excluding the medical records. Rather, we believe he undertook a thoughtful examination of the proffered evidence and determined that the medical records had no relevance, and moreover probably would confuse the jury. It is apparent that the trial justice was presented with more than fifty pages of emergency-room records, consultation reports, progress notes, and other hospital records, most of which were handwritten. The trial justice reviewed the records over the lunch recess, then stated on the record that the records pertained to medical treatment given to Mr. Snell from August 2000 to October 11, 2000, for gunshot wounds to his chest and left hand, apparently suffered in a drive-by shooting. The trial justice further noted that the medical records indicate that during surgery to defendant's left hand some kind of device was left in his hand that later was removed. He also found that the hospital reported that defendant was doing well, had no complaints, and had missed two follow-up visits. We perceive no abuse of discretion in the trial justice's ruling. We also are satisfied that the trial justice was acting within his discretion in ruling that, even if defendant's medical records did have any probative value, it was outweighed by the possibility of confusing the jury. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. R.I.R. Evid. 403. Like the question of relevance, [t]he ultimate determination [under Rule 403] of the effect of    evidence is within the trial justice's discretion. State v. Grundy, 582 A.2d 1166, 1172 (R.I.1990). Here, the admission of more than fifty pages of hospital records, mostly handwritten, pertaining to injuries suffered in an unrelated drive-by shooting some five months before the commission of the charged offenses might well have confused the jury. For all the foregoing reasons, we hold that the trial justice did not abuse his discretion by excluding the admission of the proffered hospital records as full exhibits. [5]