JEFFRIES v. PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY (2022)

Writ application denied.

La. C.C.P. art. 1636 (A) provides that “[w]hen the court rules against the admissibility of any evidence, it shall either permit the party offering such evidence to make a complete record thereof, or permit the party to make a statement setting forth the nature of the evidence.” In order for an appellate court to review evidence deemed inadmissible by the trial court, the party must comply with La. C.C.P. art. 1636 to preserve the evidence. Romero v. LaGrange, 19-689 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/4/20), 297 So. 3d 127, writ denied, 20-1435 (La. 2/9/21), 310 So. 3d 178, citing Tatum v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 10-1053 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/15/11), 79 So. 3d 1094, 1104. “The very purpose of requiring a proffer is to preserve excluded testimony so that the testimony (whatever its nature) is available for appellate review. Without a proffer, appellate courts have no way of ascertaining the nature of the excluded testimony.” McLean v. Hunter, et al., 495 So.2d 1298, 1305 (La. 10/20/86), rehearing denied, Nov. 13, 1986. Defendants in this matter made no effort before trial, during the trial, or on the hearing on the motion for new trial, to proffer any documents, evidence, sworn affidavits, or deposition testimony of the experts that were excluded by the trial court. In my view, defendants cannot now claim prejudice for their inaction below. I therefore concur in the Court's denial of this writ application.

Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons. Genovese, J., would grant. Crain, J., would grant. McCallum, J., would grant.