Court Opinion

ID: 9577118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:31:55.731602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:00.372947
License: Public Domain

Sears, Justice,
concurring specially.
The majority reverses the judgment of the trial court in this case because the court abused its discretion in determining the admissibility of the evidence in question by motion in limine. I disagree with this holding for two reasons. First, the appellants requested the trial court to determine the admissibility of the evidence in limine, and they should not be permitted to obtain a reversal on appeal based on an error they induced at trial. Moreover, contrary to the majority, I cannot conclude that under the facts of this case the trial court erred procedurally by . ruling on the admissibility of the evidence in limine. On the merits, however, I find that the evidence in question was admissible at trial, and I would hold that the trial court erred in ruling *557otherwise on the motion in limine. I therefore concur specially in the judgment of reversal.
Decided June 30, 1995.
Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, John H. Fleming, Bruce A. Den-ning, Thomas W. Curvin, for appellants.
Andersen, Davidson & Tate, Gerald Davidson, Jr., Jonathan D. Crumly, for appellee.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Hunt joins in this special concurrence.