ABUSE OF DISCRETION

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 asexhibits and business records, and a host ofother materials, including voice exemplars,handwriting samples, and blood tests.

Before such materials may be introducedinto the record at a legal proceeding, the trialcourt must determine that they satisfy certaincriteria governing the admissibility of evidence.At a minimum, the court must find that the evidenceoffered is relevant to the legal proceedings.Evidence that bears on a factual or legalissue at stake in a controversy is considered relevantevidence.

The relevancy of evidence is typically measuredby its probative value. Evidence is generallydeemed PROBATIVE if it has a tendency to makethe existence of any material fact more or lessprobable. Evidence that a murder defendant atespaghetti on the day of the murder might be relevantat trial if spaghetti sauce was found at themurder scene. Otherwise such evidence wouldprobably be deemed irrelevant and could beexcluded from trial if opposing counsel madethe proper objection.

During many civil and criminal trials, judgesrule on hundreds of evidentiary objectionslodged by both parties. These rulings are normallysnap judgments made in the heat of battle.Courts must make these decisions quickly tokeep the proceedings moving on schedule. For this reason, judges are given wide latitude inmaking evidentiary rulings and will not be overturnedon appeal unless the appellate court findsthat the trial judge abused his or her discretion.

For example, in a NEGLIGENCE case, a stateappellate court ruled that the trial court did notabuse its discretion by admitting into evidence aposed accident-scene photograph, even thoughthe photograph depicted a model pedestrianblindly walking into the path of the driver’svehicle with the pedestrian’s head pointedstraight ahead as if she was totally oblivious tothe vehicle and other traffic. Gorman v. Hunt, 19S.W.3d 662 (Ky. 2000). In upholding the trialcourt’s decision to admit the evidence, the appellate court observed that the photographwas only used to show the pedestrian’s position relative to the vehicle at the time of impact andnot to blame the pedestrian for being negligent. The appellate court also noted that the lawyer objecting to the photograph’s admissibility wasfree to remind the jury of its limited relevance during cross-examination and closing arguments.

An appellate court would find that a trialcourt abused its discretion, however, if it admittedinto evidence a photograph without proofthat it was authentic. Apter v. Ross, 781 N.E.2d744 (Ind.App. 2003). A photograph’s authenticitymay be established by a witness’s personal observations that the photograph accuratelydepicts what it purports to depict at the time thephotograph was taken. Ordinarily the photographerwho took the picture is in the best position to provide such testimony.

ABUSE OF DISCRETION