Court Opinion

ID: 9936431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:58:02.226417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:20.687385
License: Public Domain

I agree with the opinion of the Court in all its aspects except for the statement, ". . . the determination of whether particular evidence is relevant is reposed within the sound discretion of the trial court." Rules of evidence are far too definitive to justify any field of operation for a discretionary rule with respect to admissibility of evidence. In other words, the trial Court did not err in excluding evidence of the property owners' subsequent repurchase of the dwelling — not as a matter of judicial discretion, but because the rules of evidence clearly support the trial Court's ruling. There may be a very limited field of operation for judicial discretion in evidentiary matters (e.g., cumulative testimony), but not so in the "relevancy" context here presented.