Opinion ID: 864742
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the court committed error by

Text: GRANTING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE CONCERNING THE FRANK STATEMENT TO CIGARETTE SMOKERS. ¶24. RJR made a motion in limine requesting the exclusion of a document entitled Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers (Frank Statement) that was published on January 4, 1954, in newspapers nationally, including those circulated in the Southaven, Mississippi, area. The trial court granted the motion, thereby excluding the document. Our standard of review for either the admission or exclusion of evidence is abuse of discretion. Harrison v. McMillan, 828 So. 2d 756, 765 (Miss. 2002). ¶25. A group of tobacco companies which included RJR sponsored the publication of the Frank Statement. It stated, inter alia, that “[r]ecent reports on experiments with mice have given wide publicity to a theory that cigarette smoking is in some way linked with lung cancer in human beings.” Further, it stated that the company sponsors did not regard the experiments as conclusive in the field of cancer research. The companies “pledg[ed] aid and assistance to the research effort into all phases of tobacco use and health.” To that end, the companies created the Tobacco Research Committee. ¶26. Plaintiff asserts that the Frank Statement should have been allowed because it supported her claim of negligence. She asserts that the Frank Statement explains in detail the responsibility that RJR took upon itself but subsequently breached. RJR, in contrast, argues that there was no proffer to the court of the evidence that the plaintiff wanted to submit, and therefore, the issue was not properly preserved for appeal. RJR cites Metcalf v. State, 629 So.2d 558, 567 (Miss. 1993) for the proposition that when testimony is 12 excluded at trial, a record must be made of the proffered testimony in order to preserve the point for appeal. Alternatively, RJR asserts that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. ¶27. Motions in limine are properly granted “only when the trial court finds two factors are present: (1) the material or evidence in question will be inadmissible at a trial under the rules of evidence; and (2) the mere offer, reference, or statements made during trial concerning the material will tend to prejudice the jury. Tatum v. Barrentine, 797 So.2d 223, 228 (Miss. 2001) (quoting Whittley v. City of Meridian, 530 So.2d 1341, 1344 (Miss. 1988)). M.R.E. 103(a) states: Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and