Court Opinion

ID: 9771796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:53:41.446772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:36.861396
License: Public Domain

ENOCH, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. There are two prongs to the test for granting a petition for writ of mandamus. One of the prongs is whether the trial court’s ruling demonstrates a clear abuse of discretion. The second prong is whether there is an adequate remedy by appeal. Jampole v. Touchy, 673 S.W.2d 569 (Tex.1984).
The elements of the discretion prong as set out by the majority are not in dispute. This writer does not take issue with the majority’s opinion as that prong is applied to the facts of this case.
However, the majority, although noting its existence, does not address the second, equally important prong of the test which must also be met in order to sustain a request for the extraordinary relief of mandamus. The error must be of such a nature that it involves a matter which is more than incidental to the trial of the cause and for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal. State ex rel. Pettit v. Thurmond, 516 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex.1974); Ogbum v. Blackburn, 697 S.W.2d 822 (Tex.App.— Amarillo 1985, no writ). Stated another way, the error must be of such a nature that the harmed party cannot preserve the error for appellate review on the merits.
This case is significantly different from the facts found in Jampole. In Jampole, the plaintiff (relator) was barred from discovering defendants’ documents. Our general rules require that to preserve the error, the plaintiff must proffer the evidence into the record so that the appellate court *194can assess the harm, if any, that occurred due to the exclusion of the evidence. In Jampole, the plaintiff faced the impossible task of presenting evidence to the court which the court itself forbade him to have. The inability to preserve the error made the plaintiffs right to an appeal on the merits illusory. Mandamus there was proper.
In this case, however, the relators have all the evidence in their possession. It is their own experts which the trial court barred from testifying. The relators are free to present by way of bills of exceptions, any evidence they wish. Importantly, during the course of the trial, the judge is equally free to consider the proffered evidence and either maintain the previous ruling or admit the evidence into the record for the use of the trier of facts. Should the judge keep the evidence out, the appellate court would still have available a complete evidentiary record to determine harm to the relators.
For these reasons, I conclude relators have adequate relief available by appeal and, consequently, interference in the pretrial determinations of the trial court is not merited. Accordingly, I would deny the petition for writ of mandamus.