Opinion ID: 2608774
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: DID THE SUPERIOR COURT ERR IN OVERRULING P.E.'s EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS?

Text: P.E. contends that the superior court erred in overruling three of her evidentiary objections. First, P.E. objected below to L.A.'s competency to testify as to telephone conversations that D.A. had with P.E. The superior court ruled that L.A. could testify about what she knows. L.A. then testified that the calls were death threats or were threatening calls. Our review of the record in this case convinces us that even if the superior court's rulings were erroneous, the admission of L.A.'s testimony was at most cumulative, and thus not prejudicial error. [5] Second, P.E. objected below to the court's ruling permitting J.H. to render an opinion as to P.E.'s psychological improvement. L.A.'s counsel asked J.H., In your opinion was there ever[] any improvement in [P.E.'s] thinking or perception of [her] problems over a period of time? J.H. stated in reply that P.E.'s mental condition was uneven, and that there was no significant improvement. While J.H. is not a therapist, he is a social worker with several years experience. After the 1986 custody trial, J.H. had ample opportunity to observe P.E.'s condition. J.H. saw her weekly for several months. Therefore, J.H.'s testimony was arguably admissible as a lay opinion pursuant to Alaska Rule of Evidence 701, since it was rationally based upon his own experiences and was helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony. [6] However, even assuming the superior court erred in rejecting P.E.'s objection to this testimony, we hold that such error would be harmless. Insofar as P.E.'s perception of her problems was relevant to the issues in the adoption proceeding, there was extensive testimony on this matter from Dr. H. which was admitted without objection, so J.H.'s testimony on the point was cumulative. Third, P.E. objected to a leading question by L.A.'s counsel directed to J.H.L.A.'s counsel asked, [w]ould it be fair to characterize your contacts with [P.E.] as being conversations in which she was more concerned with herself and her own needs than with what [D.J.A.'s] needs might be at the particular time she was talking to you? Although we agree that this question was clearly leading, after careful consideration of the record before us, we are convinced this error was harmless; P.E.'s rights could not have been adversely affected by the ruling permitting this question.