Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Hypo overbroad document brought in followed by an

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Personal injury case Married woman, husband's consortium case against the railroad. Asked in cross isn't it true that you are rather fond of playing bridge...objected because it was immaterial. Trial court let the material in. Appellant claims that "The court erred in permitting the D to prove over the plaintiff's objection that the plaintiff's wife was fond of playing bridge." Issue: Was the plaintiff's objection that the evidence was immaterial specific enough to be preserved on appeal under FRE 103(a)? Holding: The objection was not preserved. The objection was general and a general objection doesn't preserve anything! "The testimony was not so clearly and certainly prejudicial as to relieve the appellant of the necessity of pointing out in his objection why it was so, in order to have the court's action reversed." Notes: General objections are never preserved (need to be more specific): Ex: Admissible The photograph is irrelevant under 401 cite to 401, 402, and 403 and you might preserve an objection that otherwise would be consid...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online