Rulings on Evidence — Rule 103

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

Rulings on Evidence — Rule 103

SUMMARY OF RULE 103

• CRE 103 governs offers of proof.
• For an evidentiary error to become a basis for appeal, it must affect a substantial right of a party.
• When a ruling admits evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike must be made, stating the specific ground if the specific ground is not apparent from the context.
• When a ruling excludes evidence, the substance of the evidence must be made by offer of proof or must be apparent from the context of the questions asked.
• To preserve a claim of error for appeal, you do not need to renew an objection or offer of proof once there is a definitive ruling.
• CRE 103 does not preclude review on appeal where it has not been preserved if it is considered "plain error."

LEGAL AUTHORITIES

• An offer of proof must sufficiently inform the court of the nature and substance of the proposed evidence to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion and provide a basis for appellate review. Itin v. Bertrand T. Ungar, P.C., 17 P.3d 129 (Colo. 2000).

• There was no error when an offer of proof was not made, and an objection was not made when the trial court limited the expert witness testimony. People v. Miller, 829 P.2d 443 (Colo. App. 1991).

• The voir dire of an expert before testimony and an objection following voir dire preserves an issue for appeal. Tran v. Hilburn, 948 P.2d 52 (Colo. App. 1997).

• A motion in limine will preserve an evidentiary issue for appeal per CRE 103(a)(2). Maxwell v. United Services Automobile Association, 342 P.3d 474, 478 (Colo. App. 2014).

• The right to cross-examine a former spouse regarding his or her income is waived by acquiescing to the court's proposed procedure to accept counsel's offer of proof for income and terms of a pay raise. In re Marriage of Martin, 910 P.2d 83 (Colo. App. 1995).

• In an allocation of parental rights hearing, the guardian ad litem sought testimony of a teacher, but the other parties requested an offer of proof. This was held acceptable because an extensive offer of proof was not restricted and the guardian ad litem did not state what added evidence the teacher would have provided apart from the offer of proof. People ex rel. E.D., 221 P.3d 65 (Colo. App. 2009).

• At a termination of parental rights hearing where the mother was not present, there was sufficient showing of ineffective counsel based on her counsel's agreement to proceed by offer of proof since the court terminated her parental rights without...