Opinion ID: 1196435
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Totality of the Circumstances Evidence

Text: Mary Lou asserts the district court abused its discretion in excluding evidence at trial of the circumstances of Chief Locke's encounter with the Cavataios, including: (a) Chief Locke's violence against William Cavataio, and (b) the rest of the totality of the circumstances. Mary Lou argues exclusion of this evidence was an abuse of discretion because that evidence made the squeezing of Mary Lou Cavataio's breast more probable than not, and in a case turning on credibility[,] the exclusion of that evidence was prejudicial. A district court is possessed with broad discretion in its evidentiary rulings made at trial, and we will reverse only if they amount to `a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion.' Gill, 546 F.3d at 562 (quoting Lovett ex rel. Lovett v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 201 F.3d 1074, 1081 (8th Cir.2000)). `Only when the evidence excluded is of such a critical nature that there is no reasonable assurance that the jury would have reached the same conclusion had the evidence been admitted has a district court so abused its discretion.' Id. (internal marks omitted) (quoting Stephens v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 220 F.3d 882, 885 (8th Cir.2000)). Before the trial began, the district court granted Chief Locke's motions in limine, excluding evidence, testimony, and argument relating to (1) William's claims against Chief Locke, (2) William's alleged injuries and medical treatment, and (3) the traffic tickets issued to Mary Lou. On the morning the trial began, Mary Lou's counsel requested that the district court reconsider its rulings. Mary Lou's counsel proposed to have William and Chief Locke briefly testify to the events that led up to Mary Lou's allegations, including testimony that an ambulance was called to the Cavataios' residence. Mary Lou's counsel also requested permission to present evidence of the tickets Chief Locke issued to Mary Lou. Counsel for both Mary Lou and Chief Locke agreed it was appropriate to inform the jury of William's arrest. The district court ruled the subsequent issuance of tickets to Mary Lou was not admissible, because this evidence was not relevant to Mary Lou's indecent assault and battery claim. However, the district court allow[ed] the evidence to come in that [William] was going to a hospital but not for anything having to do with an arrest or any conflict that [William] may have had with [Chief Locke] in any way. Despite the district court's rulings, the jury was informed of the totality of the circumstances leading up to Chief Locke's alleged indecent assault and battery of Mary Lou. For instance, during Mary Lou's testimony, when asked when she first learned of the dispute regarding the materials on her driveway, Mary Lou volunteered the following information: August 19th when [Chief Locke] came up and... attacked my husband. Mary Lou also testified that when she came outside of the house that day, she saw William sitting in the back seat of the police cruiser very uncomfortably looking, like leaning back. Mary Lou stated William was complaining of a sore back and laid down on the grass [because] his back was hurting so bad after Chief Locke took off the handcuffs. Mary Lou testified she retrieved an ice pack from the house to put on William's sore back and decided she would drive William to the hospital due to William's back pain. Likewise, William testified that when Chief Locke placed William in the patrol car, [Chief Locke] kind of got me off balance and I was halfway, hurt my back. William gave the following testimony regarding Chief Locke's actions while Mary Lou and William sat in the Cavataios' vehicle: He was outside the door, I was sitting there in the car and passenger seat and he asked if he hurt me. We first note counsel for the Cavataios conceded at oral argument that counsel did not make an offer of proof at trial of the additional evidence and testimony counsel would have offered absent the district court's adverse ruling on Chief Locke's motion in limine. This failure to make an offer of proof constitutes a failure to preserve the issue for our review. See Murphy v. Mo. Dept. of Corr., 506 F.3d 1111, 1117 (8th Cir.2007) (One of the most fundamental principles in the law of evidence is that in order to challenge a trial court's exclusion of evidence, an attorney must preserve the issue for appeal by making an offer of proof.) (quoting Dupre v. Fru-Con Eng., Inc., 112 F.3d 329, 336 (8th Cir.1997)). Even if counsel had made an appropriate offer of proof, we nevertheless would conclude the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in excluding evidence of Chief Locke's alleged violence against William and the totality of the circumstances. Based on the above testimony, the only totality of the circumstances evidence the jury did not hear was that an ambulance was called to the Cavataios' residence and Chief Locke subsequently issued three tickets to Mary Lou. This evidence was minimally relevant, if relevant at all. Mary Lou fails to demonstrate a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion, Gill, 546 F.3d at 562, as a result of the district court's exclusion of this evidence, because the evidence simply was not of such a critical nature to Mary Lou's indecent assault and battery claim that no reasonable jury would have reached the same conclusion had the evidence been admitted. See id.