Opinion ID: 2097385
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alleged Failure to Exclude Irrelevant and Inadmissible Evidence

Text: The Connors also contend that the trial justice improperly allowed the introduction into evidence of a 2005 video clip of Kathleen interacting with family members. [16] They argue that the trial justice incorrectly relied on this evidence in rendering his decision. In his decision, the trial justice referred to the video clips, including the 2005 clip, as the most telling evidence that Kathleen was competent at the time she signed the 2001 deed and 2002 will. He explicitly noted, however, that the videos were not direct evidence of her mental state in late 2001/early 2002, but rather served to persuasively bolster the testimony of the witnesses presented by the proponents of the deed and will. Indeed, at the time he allowed the introduction of the 2005 video, the trial justice reminded the jury that the operative time that we're really concerned with is the time when the deed was executed and the will was executed in 2001, 2002. So because we've had other evidence from    late[r] dates through testimony and still pictures, I'm going to allow [the 2005 video] as well. But keep in mind that this is well after the time period in controversy. He reiterated this assertion more forcefully in his decision of the motion for reconsideration, wherein he stressed that he didn't rely on the video [from] 2005 or 2006   . He also indicated that the videos did not weigh on [his] decision   . We have no reason to doubt the veracity of the trial justice's statements. Moreover, the trial justice enunciated more than adequate bases for his decision aside from the video evidence. Accordingly, we discern no abuse of discretion.