Evidence Rule 103


Franklin County Criminal Law Casebook

Reproduced with permission from:
Timothy E. Pierce and the Franklin County Public Defender Office

Evidence Rule 103 -- Rulings on Evidence
State v. Brooks (1989), 44 Ohio St. 3d 185, 195 -- To preserve the record for appellate review, unless the nature of the excluded evidence is apparent from the record, its proponent must proffer how it would have been relevant and material. Also see State v. Gilmore (1986), 28 Ohio St. 3d 190, syllabus; Birath v. Birath (1988), 53 Ohio App. 3d 31; State v. Davis (1964), 1 Ohio St. 2d 28.
State v. Carlson (1986), 31 Ohio App. 3d 73 -- Headnote 2: "Evid. R. 103(A)(2) excuses the need for a proffer where the substance of the evidence is apparent from the context." Also see Bilikam v. Bilikam (1982), 2 Ohio App. 3d 300. 305.
Fireman's Fund Ins. v. Mitchell-Peterson, Inc. (1989), 63 Ohio App. 3d 319, 329 -- "...(A)s a general rule, a refusal to permit a proffer when direct examination evidence is excluded is error."
State v. Hartford (1984), 21 Ohio App. 3d 133 -- While counsel must be allowed to proffer excluded evidence, since doing so is a prerequisite for appellate review, Evidence Rule 103(A)(2) does not require an offer of proof if evidence is excluded during cross-examination.
State v. Brown (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 305 -- Paragraph three of the syllabus: "A denial of a motion in limine does not preserve error for review. A proper objection must be raised at trial to preserve error." Also see State v. White (1982), 6 Ohio App. 3d 1; State v. Leslie (1984), 14 Ohio App. 3d 343.
State v. Grubb (1986), 28 Ohio St. 3d 199, 201-202 -- A motion in limine is tentative and precautionary in nature, reflecting the court's anticipatory treatment of an evidentiary issue at trial. In deciding such motions, the trial court is at liberty to change its ruling on the disputed evidence in its actual context at trail. Finality does not attach when the motion is granted. The losing party must still make a proffer of evidence when the issue becomes ripe for consideration during the course of the trial. Also see State v. Spahr (1976), 47 Ohio App. 2d 221, 224-225; State v. Leslie (1984), 14 Ohio App. 3d 343; State v. White (1982), 6 Ohio App. 3d 1.

Publishing Information

Published by Timothy E. Pierce
Copyright © Franklin County Public Defender and Timothy E. Pierce, 2015
Contents may not be duplicated without express permission.