Opinion ID: 415692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proffered Testimony and Cross-Examination

Text: 31 Rojas also complains of several adverse rulings on the scope of permissible testimony and proper cross-examination. We find no abuse of discretion in limiting Rojas' cross-examination of the employers' expert witness, according to the guidelines of Fed.R.Evid. 403. He also complains that the court excluded relevant testimony regarding conversations that took place during his hospital stay. It is difficult to see what the probative value of the proffered testimony would have been, or how the testimony would have survived the scrutiny of the hearsay rules. Furthermore, it is not apparent that the exclusion of this testimony affected a substantial right of Rojas. In sum, we are unable to interfere with the trial court's discretion under Rule 403 regarding these evidentiary rulings. 32