Trial-Related Issues (Including Motions in Limine)
Evidence, Admissibility Determinations Generally
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Crotty v. Flora, No. M2021-01193-SC-R11-CV, p. 22 (Tenn. Sept. 29, 2023).
Generally, the admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision to admit or exclude evidence is overturned on appeal only when there is an abuse of discretion. Borne v. Celadon Trucking Servs. Inc., 532 S.W.3d 274, 294 (Tenn. 2017) (internal citations omitted). An abuse of discretion may occur, however, if the trial court applies an incorrect legal standard. Id.
Milan Supply Chain Solutions F/K/A Milan Express, Inc., v. Navistar, Inc., No. W2018-00084-SC-R11-CV, 627 S.W.3d 125, 141, (Tenn. 2021).
As for Navistar’s claim that the trial court erred by refusing to admit the disclaimer into evidence, the abuse of discretion standard applies. State v. Herron, 461 S.W.3d 890, 904 (Tenn. 2015).
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals
Thomas v. Smith, No. E2022-00964-COA-R3-CV, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2023).
Regarding evidentiary issues this Court has explained:
Trial courts are given wide latitude on evidentiary decisions and we will only overturn the trial court’s decision upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. Danny L. Davis Contractors, Inc. v. Hobbs, 157 S.W.3d 414, 419 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “The abuse of discretion standard requires us to consider: (1) whether the decision has a sufficient evidentiary foundation; (2) whether the trial court correctly identified and properly applied the appropriate legal principles; and (3) whether the decision is within the range of acceptable alternatives.” Id. (citing Crowe v. First Am. Nat’l Bank, No. W2001-00800-COA-R3-CV, 2001 WL 1683710, at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2001)).
McGarity v. Jerrolds, 429 S.W.3d 562, 566 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). Likewise, this Court reviews a trial court’s award of attorney’s fees according to an abuse of discretion standard. See Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166, 176 (Tenn. 2011).
Holzmer v. Estate of Walsh, No. M2022-00616-COA-R3-CV, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2023).
The admissibility of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court reviews the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence by an abuse of discretion standard. Mercer v. Vanderbilt Univ., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 121, 131 (Tenn. 2004) (citing Otis v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 850 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tenn. 1992)). Under the abuse of discretion standard, a reviewing court cannot substitute its judgment for the trial court’s judgment. Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166, 176 (Tenn. 2011). Rather, a reviewing court will find an abuse of discretion only if the trial court “applied incorrect legal standards, reached an illogical conclusion, based its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employ[ed] reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 358 (Tenn. 2008).
State v. Pagidipati Family General Partnership, No. W2022-00078-COA-R3-CV, p. 6-7 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 25, 2023).
The Tennessee Supreme Court has previously explained the standard of review applicable to a trial court’s exclusion of evidence as follows:
Generally, the admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Otis v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 850 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tenn. 1992). The trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence will be overturned on appeal only where there is an abuse of discretion. Id. A trial court abuses its discretion “only when it ‘applie[s] an incorrect legal standard, or reache[s] a decision which is against logic or reasoning that cause[s] an injustice to the party complaining.’” Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Shirley, 6 S.W.3d 243, 247 (Tenn. 1999)).
Mercer v. Vanderbilt Univ., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 121, 131 (Tenn. 2004). With respect to condemnation proceedings, this Court has explained: “The trial court has broad discretion with regard to admitting valuation evidence in condemnation proceedings.” Giles Cnty. v. Wakefield, No. 01A01-9307-CV-00335, 1994 WL 312897, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 1, 1994).
In re the Conservatorship of Kimelah M., No. W2022-00292-COA-R3-CV, p. 6-7 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 26, 2023).
Moreover, in the context of evidentiary issues, the appellant’s burden is two-fold: “Concluding that a trial court improperly excluded otherwise admissible evidence does not end the inquiry. The erroneous exclusion of evidence will not require reversal of the judgment if the evidence would not have affected the outcome of the trial even if it had been admitted.” White, 21 S.W.3d at 223; see also Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b) (“A final judgment from which relief is available and otherwise appropriate shall not be set aside unless, considering the whole record, error involving a substantial right more probably than not affected the judgment or would result in prejudice to the judicial process.”). To this end, parties challenging the exclusion of evidence are required to make an offer of proof so that the appellate court can discern whether the exclusion of the evidence at issue would have affected the outcome of the trial:
The applicable evidentiary rule requires appellants who challenge rulings that exclude evidence to make an offer of proof unless the substance of the evidence is otherwise apparent. On appeal, an appellate court may not find that the exclusion of evidence was error unless a party’s substantial right was affected and an offer of proof is contained in the record. Tenn. R. Evid. 103(a)(2). An appellate court may find error where no offer was made if the substance of the evidence and the specific evidentiary basis for admission are apparent from the record. Id.
Alley v. State, 882 S.W.2d 810, 815 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). Thus, the exclusion of evidence will only require reversal if the exclusion was “harmful[.]” See In re Estate of Smallman, 398 S.W.3d 134, 152 (Tenn. 2013). The erroneous exclusion of evidence is harmful “when considering the whole record, error involving a substantial right more probably than not affected the judgment or would result in prejudice to the judicial process.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Gomez, 367 S.W.3d 237, 249 (Tenn. 2012)). Whether the exclusion of evidence “is sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal depends on the substance of the evidence, its relation to the other evidence, and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.” Keith v. Murfreesboro Livestock Mkt., Inc., 780 S.W.2d 751, 758 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (citing Wheeler v. State, 539 S.W.2d 812, 814 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976)).
Thomas v. Ken Smith Auto Parts, No. E2022-00591-COA-R3-CV, p. 11 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2023).
Concerning evidentiary issues, “[t]he appellate court affords the trial court wide discretion regarding the admissibility of evidence and will not overturn the trial court’s determination absent an abuse of that discretion.” Goodale v. Langenberg, 243 S.W.3d 575, 587 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (citation omitted). Regarding the abuse of discretion standard of review, “[a] court abuses its discretion when it causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard, (2) reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, or (3) basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Fisher v. Hargett, 604 S.W.3d 381, 395 (Tenn. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Harmon v. Hickman Cmty. Healthcare Servs., Inc., 594 S.W.3d 297, 305-06 (Tenn. 2020) (citations omitted)).
Creger v. Creger, No. M2022-00558-COA-R3-CV, p. 9-10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2023).
Father’s issue on appeal concerning the exclusion of evidence is also reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Hill v. Hill, No. M2006-01792-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 110101, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2008). As our Supreme Court has previously instructed:
A trial court abuses its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard or reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision that causes an injustice to the complaining party. In reviewing the trial court’s exercise of discretion, we presume that the trial court’s decision is correct and review the evidence in a light most favorable to upholding the decision. Discretionary decisions, however, require a conscientious judgment, consistent with the facts, that takes into account the applicable law.
White v. Beeks, 469 S.W.3d 517, 527 (Tenn. 2015) (internal citations omitted). Furthermore, “[c]oncluding that a trial court improperly excluded otherwise admissible evidence does not end the inquiry.” White v. Vanderbilt Univ., 21 S.W.3d 215, 223 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). Unless the erroneous exclusion of the evidence would have affected the outcome of the trial, this Court will not reverse the judgment based on the trial court’s evidentiary decision. Id.
Robinson v. City of Clarksville, Tennessee, No. M2019-02053-COA-R3-CV, p. 30-31 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2023).
We note that, “[t]he trial court has broad discretion with regard to admitting valuation evidence in condemnation proceedings.” Giles Cty. v. Wakefield, No. 01A01-9307-CV-00335, 1994 WL 312897, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 1, 1994) (citing State v. Rascoe, 178 S.W. 2d 392, 394 (Tenn. 1944) (further citation omitted)).
State v. The Witherspoon Law Group PLLC, No. E2021-01343-COA-R3-CV, p. 15 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2022).
Decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court. Tenn. R. Evid. 104(a). Therefore, “[i]ssues regarding admission of evidence in Tennessee are reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Merrell v. City of Memphis, No. W2013-00948- COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 173411, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2014) (citing Dickey v. McCord, 63 S.W.3d 714, 723 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)). On this issue, this Court has held as follows:
An appellate court will not reverse a trial court’s exercise of discretion in ruling on an evidentiary motion in limine unless there is an abuse of the wide discretion given the trial court on evidentiary matters. Pullum v. Robinette, 174 S.W.3d 124, 137 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Heath v. Memphis Radiological Prof’l Corp., 79 S.W.3d 550 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002)).
…
When arriving at a determination to admit or exclude evidence, trial courts are generally “accorded a wide degree of latitude and will only be overturned on appeal where there is a showing of abuse of discretion.” Otis v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 850 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tenn. 1993) (citing Strickland v. City of Lawrenceburg, 611 S.W.2d 832 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980); Tenn. R. Evid. 401; Austin v. City of Memphis, 684 S.W.2d 624 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984); Inman v. Aluminum Co. of America, 697 S.W.2d 350 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985)). Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected. Tenn. R. Evid. 103.
Brandy Hills Ests., LLC v. Reeves, 237 S.W.3d 307, 317-18 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “When reviewing a discretionary decision by the trial court, the ‘appellate courts should begin with the presumption that the decision is correct and should review the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision.’” Merrell, 2014 WL 173411, at *8 (quoting Overstreet v. Shoney’s, Inc., 4 S.W.3d 694, 709 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999)).
Abernathy v. Barile, No. E2022-00081-COA-R3-CV, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 21. 2022).
With respect to issues regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence, appellate courts review the trial court’s determinations under an abuse of discretion standard. Brown v. Crown Equip. Corp., 181 S.W.3d 268, 273 (Tenn. 2005); Mercer v. Vanderbilt Univ., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 121, 131 (Tenn. 2004). As we have previously explained:
Under this standard, we are required to uphold the trial court’s ruling “as long as reasonable minds could disagree about its correctness.” Caldwell v. Hill, 250 S.W.3d 865, 869 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). So, “we are not permitted tosubstitute our judgment for that of the trial court.” Id. An appellate court “will set aside a discretionary decision only when the trial court has misconstrued or misapplied the controlling legal principles or has acted inconsistently with the substantial weight of the evidence.” White v. Vanderbilt Univ., 21 S.W.3d 215, 223 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). We review a trial court’s discretionary decision to determine: “(1) whether the factual basis for the decision is supported by the evidence, (2) whether the trial court identified and applied the applicable legal principles, and (3) whether the trial court’s decision is within the range of acceptable alternatives.” Id.
Jackson v. Lanphere, No. M2010-01401-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 3566978, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2011).
Charles v. McQueen, No. M2021-00878-COA-R3-CV, p.8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2022).
“Issues regarding admission of evidence . . . are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Watson v. Watson, 196 S.W.3d 695, 702 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Dickey v. McCord, 63 S.W.3d 714, 723 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)). Under this standard, we will uphold a trial court’s ruling “so long as reasonable minds can disagree as to [the] propriety of the decision made.” Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Scott, 33 S.W.3d 746, 752 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Gilliland, 22 S.W.3d 266, 273 (Tenn. 2000)). “A trial court abuses its discretion only when it ‘applie[s] an incorrect legal standard, or reache[s] a decision which is against logic or reasoning that cause[s] an injustice to the party complaining.’” Id. (quoting State v. Shirley, 6 S.W.3d 243, 247 (Tenn. 1999)). The abuse of discretion standard does not allow this Court to “substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” Id. (citing Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920, 927 (Tenn. 1998)).
Boesch v. Holeman, No. E2021-01242-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2022).
A trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Otis v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 850 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tenn. 1992). The courts are accorded a wide degree of latitude in their determination of whether to admit or exclude evidence. Id. The abuse of discretion standard of review “does not permit reviewing courts to second-guess” the trial court “or to substitute their discretion” for that of the trial court. Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010). An abuse of discretion occurs when a court “ ‘causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard, (2) reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, or (3) basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.’” Funk v. Scripps Media, Inc., 570 S.W.3d 205, 210 (Tenn. 2019) (quoting Lee Med., 312 S.W.3d at 524).
Friedsam v. Krisle, No. M2021-00530-COA-R3-CV, p. 17 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2022).
The “decision whether to admit or exclude evidence lies within the discretion of the trial court.” In re Est. Of Schisler, 316 S.W.3d 599, 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (citing Young v. Hartley, 152 S.W.3d 490 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
Bailey v. FirstBank, No. M2020-00837-COA-R3-CV, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct App. May 27, 2022).
We review evidentiary decisions for an abuse of discretion. White v. Beeks, 469 S.W.3d 517, 527 (Tenn. 2015), as revised on denial of reh’g, (Aug. 26, 2015). “A trial court abuses its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard or reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” Id.
Estate of Martha Harrison Bane v. Bane, No. E2020-00978-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2022)
Plaintiff next argues that the trial court erred in excluding the deposition testimony of Ms. Bane. A trial court’s evidentiary determinations are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. DePasquale v. Chamberlain, 282 S.W.3d 47, 57 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Brown v. Daly, 83 S.W.3d 153, 157 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)); see also Singh v. Larry Fowler Trucking, Inc., 390 S.W.3d 280, 284 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (applying the abuse of discretion standard to determine whether the trial court erred in excluding deposition testimony). Further,
An erroneous exclusion of evidence requires reversal only if the evidence would have affected the outcome of the trial had it been admitted. Pankow v. Mitchell, 737 S.W.2d 293, 298 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). Reviewing courts cannot make this determination without knowing what the excluded evidence would have been. Stacker v. Louisville & N. R.R. Co., 106 Tenn. 450, 452, 61 S.W. 766 (1901); Davis v. Hall, 920 S.W.2d 213, 218 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995); State v. Pendergrass, 795 S.W.2d 150, 156 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989). Accordingly, the party challenging the exclusion of evidence must make an offer of proof to enable the reviewing court to determine whether the trial court’s exclusion of proffered evidence was reversible error. Tenn. R. Evid. 103(a)(2); State v. Goad, 707 S.W.2d 846, 853 (Tenn. 1986); Harwell v. Walton, 820 S.W.2d 116, 118 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). Appellate courts will not consider issues relating to the exclusion of evidence when this tender of proof has not been made. Dickey v. McCord, 63 S.W.3d 714, 723 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001); Rutherford v. Rutherford, 971 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997); Shepherd v. Perkins Builders, 968 S.W.2d 832, 833-34 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
Hampton v. Braddy, 270 S.W.3d 61, 65 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Thompson v. City of LaVergne, No. M2003-02924-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 3076887, at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2005), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 24, 2006)).
Old Republic Life Ins. Co. v. Woody, No. E2019-01475-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2022).
With respect to the standard of review regarding the admission of evidence, this Court stated in DeLapp v. Pratt:
Issues regarding admission of evidence in Tennessee are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Dickey v. McCord, 63 S.W.3d 714, 723 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “[T]rial courts are accorded a wide degree of latitude in their determination of whether to admit or exclude evidence, even if such evidence would be relevant.” Id. Our Supreme Court discussed the abuse of discretion standard in Eldridge v. Eldridge, stating:
Under the abuse of discretion standard, a trial court’s ruling “will be upheld so long as reasonable minds can disagree as to [the] propriety of the decision made.” A trial court abuses its discretion only when it “applie[s] an incorrect legal standard, or reache[s] a decision which is against logic or reasoning that cause[s] an injustice to the party complaining.” The abuse of discretion standard does not permit the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.
Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001) (citations omitted).
Appellate courts ordinarily permit discretionary decisions to stand when reasonable judicial minds can differ concerning their soundness. Overstreet v. Shoney’s, Inc., 4 S.W.3d 694, 709 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). A trial court’s discretionary decision must take into account applicable law and be consistent with the facts before the court. Id. When reviewing a discretionary decision by the trial court, the “appellate courts should begin with the presumption that the decision is correct and should review the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision.” Id.
DeLapp v. Pratt, 152 S.W.3d 530, 538 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
