Opinion ID: 1556500
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in excluding the expert testimony of Dr. Katz.

Text: ¶ 18. [T]he admission of expert testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Miss. Transp. Comm'n v. McLemore, 863 So.2d 31, 34 (Miss.2003) (citing Puckett v. State, 737 So.2d 322, 342 (Miss.1999)). Therefore, the decision of the trial judge will stand `unless we conclude that the discretion was arbitrary and clearly erroneous, amounting to an abuse of discretion.' Id. ¶ 19. The basis of Abernathy's appeal centers around the fact that Dr. Katz did not testify at trial. Specifically, Abernathy avers that the trial court erred because it determined Dr. Katz's testimony to be irrelevant, and, therefore, excluded said testimony. This Court has repeatedly held that when testimony is excluded at trial, a record must be made of the proffered testimony in order to preserve the point for appeal. Murray v. State, 849 So.2d 1281, 1289 (Miss.2003). The Official Comment to Rule 103 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence states that ... when a party objects to the exclusion of evidence, he must make an offer of proof to the court, noting on the record for the benefit of the appellate court what evidence the trial judge excluded. Vaughan v. State, 759 So.2d 1092, 1105 (Miss.1999) (Smith, J., specially concurring); see also King v. State, 374 So.2d 808 (Miss.1979); Brown v. State, 338 So.2d 1008 (Miss.1976). ¶ 20. It is evident from the trial transcript that the defense failed to make a sufficient proffer after the trial court excluded Dr. Katz's testimony. Although the defense mentioned Dr. Katz prior to trial and discussed Dr. Katz's proposed testimony during trial, the defense did not effect a sufficient proffer. See ¶¶ 11-12, supra, for the trial excerpts containing said discussion. Even finding that the testimony of Dr. Katz would have been relevant, the record is insufficient for us to determine whether it could have survived under the Mississippi Rule of Evidence 403 balancing test for admissibility. [5] It is incumbent upon the proponent of evidence to make an adequate record of the proposed testimony which this Court can review. This was not done in this case; without such we are unable to find that the trial court erred. ¶ 21. Accordingly, we find that the record lacks the necessary information to make a determination concerning the admissibility of the evidence, even if found to be relevant. Likewise, the lack of a sufficient proffer renders this Court unable to hold the trial judge in error. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of David Abernathy are hereby affirmed.