Opinion ID: 2169857
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Preclusion of the Testimony of a Defense Witness

Text: The defendants' final argument on appeal is that the trial justice abused her discretion by refusing to allow them to call as a witness one of their former employees, one Bonnie Laferriere. Ms. Laferriere was one of the managers on duty on the night when Mrs. Mead was injured. It is defendants' contention that the trial justice improperly barred the testimony of Ms. Laferriere as a sanction for her failure to have responded to a subpoena that plaintiffs' counsel had caused to be served upon her during the course of discovery. In response to this appellate contention, the Meads assert that defendants waived the right to raise this issue by failing to include it among their arguments when they moved for a new trial in the Superior Court. The Meads also point to the fact that defendants failed to make an offer of proof as to the anticipated testimony of this witness. We agree with the Meads' assertion that defendants did not properly preserve this issue and that therefore they may not now raise it on appeal. It is our opinion, however, that it is defendants' failure to have protected the record by making an offer of proof before the trial court, rather than their failure to have raised the issue in their motion for a new trial, that is fatal to their request for appellate review of this issue. We take this opportunity to dispel any confusion that may exist among some members of the bar as a result of the interpretation of certain comments in our opinion in the case of Amica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tashjian, 703 A.2d 93 (R.I. 1997), in which we discussed the then-new language in Rule 59 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. We do not retreat from what we said in Tashjian about the necessity of bringing to the attention of the trial justice presiding over jury trials any arguable legal errors that may have been committed by the trial justice during the course of the trial. It is not necessary, however, to itemize at the Rule 59 juncture each and every non-legal error that counsel believes may have been committed during the trial ( e.g., rulings as to the admissibility vel non of a particular piece of evidence). Because the trial justice's ruling as to the exclusion of a witness's testimony in the present case was not an error of law, we are not prepared to hold that defendants have waived their right to appeal this issue due to the fact that they did not raise it at the Rule 59 juncture. Nevertheless, it is well settled that, in order to properly preserve for appeal the issue of whether certain testimony was inappropriately excluded, the litigant must, under circumstances such as those presented here, make an offer of proof after the objection to the expected testimony is sustained. See Manning v. Redevelopment Agency of Newport, 103 R.I. 371, 378, 238 A.2d 378, 382 (1968) (The rule which requires an offer of proof    requires an examiner, after objection to a question propounded to a witness has been sustained, to advise the trial court what [the examiner] expected the witness would have said if allowed to answer.); see also R.I. R. Evid. 103(a)(2). The purpose of the rule requiring the proponent of evidence that the trial justice intends to exclude to make an offer of proof is twofold: (1) to fully advise the trial justice of the substance and value of the proposed evidence; and (2) to preserve the issue for appeal and to put this Court in a position where it can decide whether the complaining party was prejudiced by the exclusion of the testimony. Manning, 103 R.I. at 378-79, 238 A.2d at 382. As we said in Manning, if the stated purpose is to be realized, the offer of proof should be reasonably specific   ; should include a statement of the facts to which the witness would testify   ; should indicate the purpose and object of the proof offered   ; and should establish that the evidence sought to be elicited is admissible   . Id. at 379, 238 A.2d at 382-83. In the instant case, defendants made no such offer of proof. After the trial justice ruled that defendants would not be permitted to call their former employee to testify, counsel for defendants simply noted his objection on the record, but provided absolutely no indication of what testimony he anticipated that Ms. Laferriere would give. Instead, counsel merely stated: She has information I think that's going to be helpful to the Court. She has testimony I think that's relevant. The attorney's statement that Ms. Laferriere had information (not described with any specificity whatsoever) that the attorney thought would be relevant certainly does not put this Court in a position to determine whether defendants were prejudiced by the exclusion of the testimony of that witness. Consequently, we will not address this issue on appeal.