A failure to take into proper consideration the facts and law relating to a particular matter; an Arbitrary or unreasonable departure from precedent and settled judicial custom.
Where
a trial court must exercise discretion in deciding a question, it must
do so in a way that is not clearly against logic and the evidence. An
improvident exercise of discretion is an error of law and grounds for
reversing a decision on appeal. It does not, however, necessarily amount
to bad faith, intentional wrong, or misconduct by the trial judge.
For
example, the traditional standard of appellate review for
evidence-related questions arising during trial is the "abuse of
discretion" standard. Most judicial determinations are made based on
evidence introduced at legal proceedings. Evidence may consist of oral
testimony, written testimony, videotapes and sound recordings,
documentary evidence such as exhibits and business records, and a host
of other materials, including voice exemplars, handwriting samples, and
blood tests.
Before
such materials may be introduced into the record at a legal proceeding,
the trial court must determine that they satisfy certain criteria
governing the admissibility of evidence. At a minimum, the court must
find that the evidence offered is relevant to the legal proceedings.
Evidence that bears on a factual or legal issue at stake in a
controversy is considered relevant evidence.
The relevancy of evidence is typically measured by its probative value. Evidence is generally deemed Probative if
it has a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or
less probable. Evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day
of the murder might be relevant at trial if spaghetti sauce was found
at the murder scene. Otherwise such evidence would probably be deemed
irrelevant and could be excluded from trial if opposing counsel made the
proper objection.
During
many civil and criminal trials, judges rule on hundreds of evidentiary
objections lodged by both parties. These rulings are normally snap
judgments made in the heat of battle. Courts must make these decisions
quickly to keep the proceedings moving on schedule. For this reason,
judges are given wide latitude in making evidentiary rulings and will
not be over-turned on appeal unless the appellate court finds that the
trial judge abused his or her discretion.
For example, in a Negligence case,
a state appellate court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by admitting into evidence a posed accident-scene photograph,
even though the photograph depicted a model pedestrian blindly walking
into the path of the driver's vehicle with the pedestrian's head pointed
straight ahead as if she was totally oblivious to the vehicle and other
traffic. Gorman v. Hunt,
19 S.W.3d 662 (Ky. 2000). In upholding the trial court's decision to
admit the evidence, the appellate court observed that the photograph was
only used to show the pedestrian's position relative to the vehicle at
the time of impact and not to blame the pedestrian for being negligent.
The appellate court also noted that the lawyer objecting to the
photograph's admissibility was free to remind the jury of its limited
relevance during cross-examination and closing arguments.
An
appellate court would find that a trial court abused its discretion,
however, if it admitted into evidence a photograph without proof that it
was authentic. Apter v. Ross,
781 N.E.2d 744 (Ind.App. 2003). A photograph's authenticity may be
established by a witness's personal observations that the photograph
accurately depicts what it purports to depict at the time the photograph
was taken. Ordinarily the photographer who took the picture is in the
best position to provide such testimony.
Further readings
Cohen,
Ruth Bryna. 2000."Superior Court Affirms Non Pros for Failure to
Subpoena Own Witness; Trial Court Did not Abuse Discretion in Its
Application of Civil Procedure Rule 216." Pennsylvania Law Weekly (October 9).
Hamblett, Mark. 2001. "Circuit Panel Issues Recusal Guidelines; Says Rakoff Acted Properly In Not Stepping Down." New York Law Journal (February 26).
Riccardi,
Michael A. 2002."Polygraph Evidence OK to Prove Probable Cause, Circuit
Judges Say; No Abuse of Discretion in Relying on 'Lie Detector' for
Limited Purpose." Pennsylvania Law Weekly (April 29).
Cross-references
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Ads by Google
Defamation Lawyer
Experienced Defamation Specialists 28 years experience in defamation
australian-defamation-lawyers.com.au
Experienced Defamation Specialists 28 years experience in defamation
australian-defamation-lawyers.com.au
4BC Mornings: Kevin
Lindeberg is an ex Trade Union official. Twenty threre years ago he was
involved in calling to account members of the former Goss Government
over the illegal shredding of documents relating to child abuse.
