Opinion ID: 161778
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adequacy of the Offer of Proof

Text: 7 At the outset we are faced with the question of whether Mr. Adams made an offer of proof to the trial court adequate to preserve the claimed error of excluding the psychologist's testimony. Error may not be based on a ruling excluding evidence unless 'the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer [of proof] or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked.' Inselman v. S & J Operating Co., 44 F.3d 894, 896 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(2)). On numerous occasions we have held that 'merely telling the court the content of ... proposed testimony' is not an offer of proof. Polys v. Trans-Colorado Airlines, Inc., 941 F.2d 1404, 1407 (10th Cir. 1991)(quoting Gates v. United States, 707 F.2d 1141, 1145 (10th Cir. 1983). In order to qualify as an adequate offer of proof, the proponent must, first, describe the evidence and what it tends to show and, second, identify the grounds for admitting the evidence. Phillips v. Hillcrest Med. Ctr., 244 F.3d 790, 802 (10th Cir. 2001); Polys, 941 F.2d at 1407. If the proponent's offer of proof fails this standard, then this court can reverse only in instances of plain error that affected appellant's substantial rights. Phillips, 244 F.3d at 802; Fed. R. Evid. 103(d). 8 A twofold purpose underlies these required showings. First, an effective offer of proof enables the trial judge to make informed decisions based on the substance of the evidence. Polys, 941 F.2d at 1406. Second, an effective offer of proof creates a clear record that an appellate court can review to 'determine whether there was reversible error in excluding the [testimony].' Id. at 1407 (quoting New Mexico Sav. & Loan Assoc. v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 454 F.2d 328, 334 (10th Cir. 1972)). 9 Federal Rule of Evidence 103(a)(2) does not mandate a particular form for offers of proof. Instead, the rule invests the trial judge with discretion in determining the form of the offer. Fed. R. Evid. 103(b). There are at least four ways to make an offer of proof of testimony and achieve the purposes underlying the rule. 1 McCormick on Evidence 51, at 216 n.9 (John W. Strong, 5th ed. 1999). First, and most desirable from all standpoints except cost, the proponent may examine the witness before the court and have the answers reported on the record. Id.; 21 Charles Alan Wright & Kenneth W. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure 5040, at 214 (1977). The question and answer method necessitates excusing a jury, but this concern is not present when the offer of proof is made, as here, at a pretrial motion hearing. When the proponent proffers testimony in this manner, opposing counsel may be permitted to cross-examine the witness to develop any factors which would put the proferred testimony in its true light. Wright & Graham 5040, at 214. 10 The second, and least favorable, method for making an offer of proof of testimony is a statement of counsel as to what the testimony would be. Id. at 215. In this case, the colloquy between counsel and the district court was so lacking in detail that it is difficult to decipher why exclusion of the evidence might be error. During the hearing on the motion in limine, defense counsel stated that he had asked the examining psychologist to look into whether or not [Mr. Adams's] personality, mental makeup, however you want to put it, would he be so inclined given the testing that's done, would there be a possibility that he would give a false statement to the police. R.O.A. Supp. Vol. I, at 4. Counsel then proffered that the examining psychologist had suggested in one of the paragraphs [of the report]... that his personality certainly is one that could have been statements to the police could have been false. Id. 11 An offer of proof of testimony by counsel is the least favored method because of its potential to fall short of the standard required by the rules of evidence as well as the standard set out in Phillips and Polys. Defense counsel's offer of proof made during the colloquy with the judge illustrates the potential pitfalls of this method. Specificity and detail are the hallmarks of a good offer of proof of testimony, Wright & Graham 5040, at 213, and conclusory terms, especially when presented in a confused manner, mark poor ones. 1 Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence 14, at 71 (2d ed. 1994). Defense counsel hardly met the baseline requirement of 'merely telling the court the content of ... [the] proposed testimony. Polys, 941 F.2d at 1407. As for the additional requirements set out in Phillips and Polys, counsel did not explain the significance of the proposed evidence or what he expected the evidence to show. Phillips, 244 F.3d at 802; Polys, 941 F.2d at 1407. Nor did counsel clearly identify the grounds for which [he] believes the evidence to be admissible. Id. 12 Documentary offers of proof comprise the third and fourth proper forms of proffering anticipated testimony. McCormick 51, at 216 n.9. The first of these, and least common, is a statement written by examining counsel describing the answers the proposed witness would give if permitted to testify. Id. More common, and relevant to this case, the proponent of the evidence may introduce a written statement of the witness's testimony signed by the witness and offered as part of the record. Id. (emphasis added). In using either method of documentary proffer for anticipated testimony, [i]t is suggested...that the writing be marked as an exhibit and introduced into the record for proper identification on appeal. Id.; see also Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 116 (1943); 1 Michael H. Graham, Handbook of Federal Evidence, 103.7, at 61 (5th ed. 2001). Indeed the primary, formal reason for an offer of proof is to preserve the issue for appeal by including the proposed answer and expected proof in the official record of trial. McCormick 51, at 216 n.9 (emphasis added). 13 On the morning of the pretrial hearing, counsel for Mr. Adams apparently sent a facsimile of the psychologist's report directly to the district court judge, who referred to the report during the hearing. R.O.A. Supp. Vol. I, at 8. The report was not marked as an exhibit. Documents and other exhibits are usually marked for identification and become part of the record on appeal, even if excluded. Wright & Graham 5040, at 213. Nor was it filed as an exhibit to a pleading. The report is not part of the record below. 14 Merely sending a facsimile of the psychologist's report to the judge on the morning before the hearing unfortunately does not guarantee that the faxed item will actually be marked as an exhibit or filed and become part of the record. Our rules anticipate that when an appeal is based upon the challenge to the admission or exclusion of evidence, we be furnished not only with pertinent transcript excerpts, but also with pertinent trial exhibits that are part of the record. 10th Cir. R. 10.3(D)(1) & (2). 15 Mr. Adams has moved to supplement the record. The appellate rules allow supplementation of the record on appeal in instances where anything material...is omitted from or misstated in the record by error or accident. Fed. R. App. P. 10(e)(2). Because the district court judge did make passing reference to a recently faxed psychologist's report, R.O.A. Supp. Vol. I, at 8, and because counsel as an officer of the court represents that this is the same report that was before the district court, and because the government does not oppose it, we will grant the motion. We remind counsel, however, of the importance of a valid, properly presented, detailed, and recorded offer of proof when testimony is involved and of the importance of insuring that supporting documentary evidence be made part of the record.