Opinion ID: 1670354
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the trial court err in basing its review on the transcript of the hearing?

Text: Mr. Welch argues that the trial court erred in basing its decision on the transcript of the hearing before the Board's hearing committee because, according to him, much of the evidence from the hearing was inadmissible. In his brief, Mr. Welch points to approximately fifty-two excerpts from various witnesses' testimony as representative of the alleged inadmissible evidence. However, during the trial before the hearing committee, Mr. Welch's counsel only objected to two of those fifty-two excerpts from the witnesses' testimony. The hearing committee sustained one objection made by Mr. Welch's attorney and allowed the other answer after overruling Mr. Welch's second objection. To determine whether Mr. Welch waived the issue of the admissibility of the evidence by not objecting before the hearing panel, we must determine if the Tennessee Rules of Evidence apply in this case. [5] While, by express terms, the Tennessee Rules of Evidence govern evidence rulings in all trial courts of Tennessee, Tenn. R. Evid. 101, there is nothing in the rules to prevent their application in other venues. A review of the disciplinary process in Tennessee convinces us that there is no logical reason why the Rules of Evidence should not apply to a hearing before the hearing committee and any subsequent appeal to the circuit or chancery court. When a formal complaint of discipline is filed against an attorney and the matter is not settled, the attorney may request the opportunity to be heard in litigation at a formal hearing before the committee. Tenn. Sup.Ct. R. 9, § 8.2. The attorney has the right to be represented by counsel, to cross-examine witnesses, and to present evidence in his own behalf. Id. The hearing committee hears and weighs the evidence, considers the applicable law, and renders a decision. Specifically, [t]he hearing committee shall, in every case, submit its findings and judgment, in the form of a final decree of a trial court, to the Board.... Tenn. Sup.Ct. R. 9, § 8.3 (emphasis added). Much like the decision of a trial court, this decision of the hearing committee is final and binding upon the parties, unless set aside by a higher authority. Just as the decision of a trial court may be appealed to the Court of Appeals or Court of Criminal Appeals, the decision of the hearing committee may be appealed to the circuit or chancery court. Accordingly, we are persuaded that the application of the Rules of Evidence will serve to further their stated objective, which is to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of proceedings. Tenn. R. Evid. 102. Thus, for the abovestated reasons, we hold that the Rules of Evidence shall apply to proceedings before the Board's hearing committee. With respect to objections to the admission of evidence, Rule 103(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence provides: (a) Effect of Erroneous Ruling. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and (1) Objection. In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears in the record, stating specific ground of objection if the specific ground was not apparent from the context; ... Generally, failure to make a timely, specific objection in a trial court prevents a litigant from challenging the introduction of inadmissible evidence for the first time on appeal. See M. Lewis & Sons v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 150 Tenn. 94, 259 S.W. 903, 904 (1924); Grandstaff v. Hawks, 36 S.W.3d 482, 488 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000); Wright v. United Serv. Auto. Assn., 789 S.W.2d 911, 914 (Tenn.Ct.App.1990). The rationale for this rule has been explained as follows: Any other rule would result in setting a trap for the other side of the controversy. When objection is made to evidence, and specified, this notification may enable opposing counsel to obviate it, and thus make the evidence competent, but, if the party making an erroneous objection should be allowed to withhold a good objection and make that in the appellate court, where there can be no possibility of avoiding the difficulty by other evidence, this would give a very great advantage to the party so withholding his real objection, and result in corresponding disadvantage and injustice to the opposing litigant. Middle Tennessee R. Co. v. McMillan, 134 Tenn. 490, 184 S.W. 20, 24 (1916). This rationale for requiring objections to evidence to be made at the first available opportunity applies equally to proceedings before the hearing committee as it does to proceedings in a trial court. Because Mr. Welch's counsel did not object to the admission of the evidence before the hearing committee, Mr. Welch cannot contest its admissibility on appeal. As for the one objection that the hearing committee sustained, [6] the fact that the objection was sustained would have been part of the record considered by the trial court. Furthermore, Mr. Welch has shown no prejudice by the inclusion of that one portion of the evidence in light of the overwhelming admissible evidence of his guilt.