Opinion ID: 601383
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of Plaintiffs' Income

Text: 16 Finally, Plaintiffs urge that the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the Rothmans' income, because the Rothmans' had not claimed lost earnings. Plaintiffs did claim expenses related to the necessity of hiring an additional employee to assist Mrs. Rothman in her partnership duties. Defendants respond that this claim opened the door for inquiry into plaintiffs' partnership income. 17  'A trial court has broad discretion to determine whether evidence is relevant, and its decision will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of clear abuse of that discretion.'  United States v. Bedonie, 913 F.2d 782, 801 (10th Cir.1990) (quoting Hill v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc., 790 F.2d 817, 825 (10th Cir.1986)). We agree with plaintiffs that evidence of their income was not relevant to their damage claim. However, in light of our review of the entire record provided on appeal, we find that any error was harmless. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 61. 18 Accordingly, the district court is AFFIRMED.