Opinion ID: 6109766
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Civil Lawsuit

Text: Sharp contends that the circuit court abused its discretion when it granted the State's motion in limine to exclude evidence that B.R. had filed a civil lawsuit against the owners of the apartment complex where the rape occurred. The State made its motion at a bench conference before trial: THE STATE : Your Honor, there's an individual that came in the courtroom and said he represented the apartment complex. There is a current lawsuit pending between the victim and the apartment complex. We'd ask in limine that no mention of that lawsuit happen. That's not relevant to any issues in this trial and any relevance it might have would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice pursuant to Rule 401 and 403 of the Rules of Evidence. THE COURT : Any objection? DEFENSE COUNSEL : Well, Your Honor, from talking to counsel-and his name escapes me- I've met him a few times, my understanding was that the lawsuit was initiated around the approximate time that she has alleged this rape has occurred. Like they had filed a lawsuit and then the next day she has claimed the alleged assault and has filed suit against I guess the apartment complex as well. And I think that could go to possible bias or credibility of the witness. THE STATE : She was actually buying out of her apartment complex and had paid to buy out. They just kind of jumped the gun and served her with it, so the lawsuit hadn't actually happened. Now this lawsuit the guy's here for has to do with after the fact. This happened after the rape. THE COURT : Yeah, how is it relevant to this case? This is a DNA CODIS hit. DEFENSE COUNSEL : Well, she's-depending on whether or not it's consensual or not. If she's claiming it's no longer consensual, for the purpose of defeating or at least mitigating her liability on this lawsuit I think that can go to her credibility. THE COURT : I disagree. That's overruled. The motion in limine is granted. We're  not to make any mention of the civil case and he really shouldn't be talking to anybody. Sharp asserts that evidence of B.R.'s civil suit was relevant to the issues of bias and credibility because a guilty verdict in the criminal case might aid her recovery in the civil matter. The State contends that Sharp did not preserve this issue for appeal because he failed to proffer the evidence that he sought to have admitted. Sharp concedes that he did not proffer the evidence; however, he contends that a proffer was unnecessary because the substance of the excluded evidence is apparent. Sharp claims that B.R.'s civil suit against the apartment complex was based on the facts giving rise to the criminal charge against him. Accordingly, Sharp contends that the circuit court should have allowed evidence of the civil suit because it was relevant to show B.R.'s strong pecuniary interest in testifying against him at trial. A proffer permit[s] the trial judge to make an informed evidentiary ruling and create[s] a clear record that an appellate court can review to determine whether there was reversible error in excluding the [evidence]. Perkins v. Silver Mountain Sports Club & Spa, LLC , 557 F.3d 1141 , 1147 (10th Cir. 2009). Generally, a party must make a proffer to preserve for appellate review an issue concerning the erroneous exclusion of evidence at trial. See, e.g. , Tauber v. State , 324 Ark. 47 , 919 S.W.2d 196 (1996) ; Ark. R. Evid. 103(a)(2) (2017). A proffer is unnecessary, however, when the substance of the evidence is apparent from the context within which it was offered. See, e.g. , Roe v. State , 310 Ark. 490 , 837 S.W.2d 474 (1992). Here, the colloquy from the bench conference suggests that there were two lawsuits involving the apartment complex and B.R. First, it appears that the apartment complex initiated legal action against B.R. before the rape occurred. Next, it appears that B.R. filed suit against the apartment complex after the rape occurred. However, a review of the bench conference colloquy reveals that Sharp failed to articulate to the circuit court the basis for B.R.'s suit against the apartment complex, the theory of liability she had pursued, or whether she had sought money damages. In short, Sharp failed to apprise the circuit court of the relevance of the civil lawsuit. Further, the substance of the excluded evidence is not apparent from the context within which it was offered. Absent a proffer, we are unable to determine whether prejudice results from the exclusion of evidence. Edison v. State , 2015 Ark. 376 , 472 S.W.3d 474 . Consequently, Sharp's failure to make a proffer of excluded evidence precludes appellate review. E.g. , Conway v. State , 2016 Ark. 7 , 479 S.W.3d 1 .