Opinion ID: 2399207
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Propriety of Reconsidering the Admissibility of Dr. Johnson's Testimony in the Context of the Trial

Text: First, plaintiff argues that the trial justice erroneously reconsidered his pretrial ruling admitting the expert testimony of Dr. Johnson. As a board-certified anesthesiologist, Dr. Johnson was prepared to testify that defendants' negligence caused plaintiffs injuries. The plaintiff contends that Dr. Johnson's testimony was both proper and probative on the issue of liability. He maintains that the trial justice committed a clear error of law in reversing his initial finding after the preliminary hearing, when he ruled that Dr. Johnson could testify as an expert. The plaintiff suggests that the trial justice, in later changing his mind and in excluding this testimony, relied solely on the fact that plaintiff had offered no evidence up to that point in the trial which corroborated Dr. Johnson's testimony. He argues that, in excluding the opinion of Dr. Johnson, the trial justice misinterpreted this Court's holding in State v. Cook 782 A.2d 653 (R.I.2001) (per curiam), in which we acknowledged that trial justices can revisit their rulings on motions in limine. He asserts that Cook only requires that the trial court determine whether any evidence had been admitted during the interim period which would call into question the propriety of the original ruling on the preliminary matter. The defendants maintain that the trial justice properly excluded the proffered testimony of Dr. Johnson. The hospital argues that it was appropriate for the trial justice to revisit his earlier decision about the admissibility of the proffered opinions of plaintiff's expert witness  especially in light of the fact that, at trial, there was no scientific or factual support for Dr. Johnson's proposed expert testimony. Doctor Towne and Nurse Paolino also contend that the trial justice reconsidered his previous ruling in the context of the evidence adduced at the trial as of the time the expert witness was proffered. They maintain that the trial justice properly excluded the testimony of Dr. Johnson because there was no scientific or factual basis to support his opinions about the applicable standard of care, defendants' alleged breach thereof, and the cause of plaintiff's injuries. A motion in limine is `widely recognized as a salutary device to avoid the impact of unfairly prejudicial evidence upon the jury and to save a significant amount of time at the trial.' BHG, Inc. v. F.A.F., Inc., 784 A.2d 884, 886 (R.I. 2001). We review a trial justice's decision on a motion in limine for an abuse of discretion. See Graff v. Motto, 748 A.2d 249, 253-54 (R.I.2000). This Court will not disturb a trial justice's ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony absent an abuse of discretion. ADP Marshall, Inc. v. Brown University, 784 A.2d 309, 314 (R.I.2001). In Cook, we explained that a trial justice can reconsider a previous ruling on a motion in limine during a trial or any rebuttal case: `[T]he granting of a motion in limine need not be taken as a final determination of the admissibility of the evidence.'    The trial justice can reconsider the motion in limine during the trial or in rebuttal. This is because the purpose of the motion in limine is to prevent the proponent of potentially prejudicial matter from displaying it to the jury    in any manner until the trial court has ruled upon its admissibility in the context of the trial itself.'    Finally, `by adopting this approach, we do not suggest that a determination made upon a motion in limine should be ignored by the parties but only that the trial justice may, in appropriate circumstances, reconsider such a determination without committing error per se.' Cook, 782 A.2d at 654-55. (Emphasis added.) Given this Court's holding in Cook, the trial justice, we hold, did not commit error per se in reconsidering the motion during trial. When doing so, the trial justice stated: We are again at the point in time where Dr. Johnson's testimony is    being sought to be admitted by the plaintiff   . The court    is to view    the proffered testimony in the context in which it is about to be introduced. And in the context of this matter    we have the testimony of Dr. Towne, Ms. Paolino, Ms. Choinere, Ms. Rocha, who were all present in the operating room   . All of those witnesses have testified    as to the presence of any indication suggesting pressure points for Mr. Owens   . There were none. After hearing the live testimony of five witnesses and assessing their credibility, the trial justice determined that Dr. Johnson's testimony was unreliable and, therefore, inadmissible. In accordance with Cook, the trial justice did not err in concluding that he was entitled to revisit his earlier determination in the context of the trial and, in appropriate circumstances, if the evidence then before him so warranted, to reverse his previous ruling. In so doing, the trial justice is required to set forth with particularity the circumstances giving rise to a reversal of this pretrial ruling. Here, however, for the reasons set forth below, we hold that the circumstances were not appropriate to warrant reversing his previous ruling admitting Dr. Johnson's testimony and, therefore, the trial justice abused his discretion in doing so.