law-harmful-error-analysis-of-evidentiary-rulings admission exclusion of evidence challenged on appeal
HARMFUL ERROR RULE – APPEALING EVIDENTIARY RULING
Evidentiary rulings are committed to the trial court's sound discretion. Bay Area Healthcare Grp., Ltd. v.
McShane, 239 S.W.3d 231, 234 (Tex. 2007). We review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude
evidence for an abuse of that discretion. In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570, 575 (Tex. 2005). A trial court
abuses its discretion when it acts without reference to any guiding rules and principles. Garcia v. Martinez,
988 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Tex. 1999). We must uphold the trial court's evidentiary ruling if there is any
legitimate basis for the ruling. Owens—Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35, 43 (Tex. 1998);
Oyster Creek Fin. Corp. v. Richwood Invs. II, Inc., 176 S.W.3d 307, 317 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]
2004, pet. denied).
"To obtain reversal of a judgment based on error in the admission or exclusion of evidence, an appellant
must show that the trial court's ruling was erroneous and that the error was calculated to cause, and
probably did cause, `rendition of an improper judgment.'" Benavides v. Cushman, Inc., 189 S.W.3d 875,
879 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (quoting TEX. R. APP. P. 44.1(a)(1); Malone, 972 S.W.2d
at 43). In conducting this harm analysis, we review the entire record. Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Able, 35 S.W.
3d 608, 617 (Tex. 2000); Benavides, 189 S.W.3d at 879.
Evidentiary rulings do not usually cause reversible error unless an appellant can demonstrate that the
judgment turns on the particular evidence that was admitted or excluded. City of Brownsville v. Alvarado,
897 S.W.2d 750, 753-54 (Tex. 1995); Benavides, 189 S.W.3d at 879. An error in the exclusion of evidence
requires reversal if it is both controlling on a material issue and not cumulative. Mentis v. Barnard, 870 S.W.
2d 14, 16 (Tex. 1994).
A successful challenge to evidentiary rulings usually requires the complaining party to show that the
judgment turns on the particular evidence excluded or admitted. Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750,
753-54 (Tex. 1995). In determining if the excluded evidence probably resulted in the rendition of an
improper judgment, a court must review the entire record. McCraw v. Maris, 828 S.W.2d 756, 758 (Tex.
1992); Gee v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 765 S.W.2d 394, 396 (Tex.1989). A court ordinarily will not
reverse a judgment for erroneous rulings on admissibility of evidence when the evidence in question is
cumulative and not controlling on a material issue dispositive to the case. Gee, 765 S.W.2d at 396. To
obtain a reversal of a judgment based on error in the exclusion of evidence, an appellant must show that
the trial court's ruling was in error and that the error was calculated to cause and probably did cause the
rendition of an improper judgment. Tex. R. App. P. 44.1; Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d at 753; McCraw, 828 S.W.
2d at 757.
Given his full presentation of his expert's testimony, his cross-examination of Elizabeth's expert and his
waiver of his right to cross-examine Elizabeth, we are not persuaded that the exclusion of the evidence
Edward included in his bill of exception resulted in an improper judgment. We resolve Edward's second
issue as to rebuttal evidence against him.
08-0728
ELIZABETH W. BUFKIN v. EDWARD O. BUFKIN, JR.; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-06-01719-CV,
259 SW3d 343, 07-01-08) 2 petitions, pet. denied Nov. 2008)(prejudgment interest, admissibility of expert
testimony, harm analysis of evidentiary ruling by trial court, divorce fault grounds, prenup, stipulation
agreement)
TEXAS CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | HOUSTON COURTS OF APPEALS |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE