Chapter 2 - § 2.7 • APPELLATE REVIEW

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 2.7 • APPELLATE REVIEW

Colorado

➢ General. An appellate court reviews the trial court's in limine evidentiary ruling for abuse of discretion. Palizzi v. City of Brighton, 228 P.3d 957, 962 (Colo. 2010); Huffman v. Westmoreland Coal Co., 205 P.3d 501 (Colo. App. 2009) (citing Ehrlich Feedlot, Inc. v. Oldenburg, 140 P.3d 265 (Colo. App. 2006)).

➢ General. A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. Palizzi v. City of Brighton, 228 P.3d 957, 962 (Colo. 2010). A trial court also abuses its discretion when it erroneously applies the law. Vanderpool v. Loftness, 300 P. 3d 953 (Colo. App. 2012).

➢ General. The procedures to resolve questions of admissibility, and the determinations themselves, are subject to review. Good v. A. B. Chance Co., 565 P.2d 217, 221 (Colo. App. 1977), superseded on other grounds, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19366.

➢ General. The state sought writ of prohibition after the trial judge declared a mistrial and disqualified a deputy district attorney due to the deputy's presentation of evidence that had been ruled inadmissible on motion in limine. The Colorado Supreme Court held that the trial judge abused his discretion by usurping the district attorney's discretion to appoint a deputy of his own choice. People v. District Court, 767 P.2d 239, 241 (Colo. 1989) (en banc).

➢ Harmless Error. In action for negligent retention of violent tenant, any error resulting from trial court's granting of landlords' motion in limine to exclude evidence of tenant's prior criminal record was harmless where trial court, with knowledge of prior act evidence, properly determined that landlord did not have duty to control conduct of tenant so as to prevent him from causing physical harm to another. Molosz v. Hohertz, 957 P.2d 1049 (Colo. App. 1998).
➢ Scope. In reviewing a ruling on the admissibility of evidence, the reviewing court must include the trial court's in limine ruling and analysis on the matter. The reviewing court may not invade the trial court's discretionary province as long as a review of the record reveals that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its in limine ruling. See Hock v. New York Life Ins. Co., 876 P.2d 1242, 1252 (Colo. 1994) (en banc).

➢ Scope. In an eminent domain action, the matter was not ripe for appeal until issues concerning whether there had been a taking, the extent of the taking, and a determination of just compensation for the taking were resolved. Thus,

...