Court may not limit party's evidence to proffers from counsel

Law Reporter, Apr 2000

Kawamoto v. Fratto, _ P2d -, No. 990485,2000 WL 14999 (Utah Jan. 11, 2000).

The Utah Supreme Court held that where the credibility of a witness is critical to the outcome of a case, or where the disputed evidence touches on expert assessments and opinions, a court may not limit a party's evidence to proffers from counsel.

Here, in a small claims trial arising out of an auto accident, the trial court required the attorneys to proceed by proffer. Although defendant's counsel objected to the mandatory use of proffers and had witnesses present to testify, he presented the evidence by proffer in accordance with the trial court's order. At the close of evidence, the trial court announced several conclusions, including that: (1) defendant was at fault; (2) plaintiff suffered the injuries he described in his testimony; and (3) plaintiffs medical bills were for reasonable and necessary procedures. Based on these conclusions, the trial court awarded plaintiff damages. Defendant filed a petition for an extraordinary writ, arguing that a party may not be required to proffer evidence in lieu of witness testimony in small claims court.

Granting the writ, the state high court noted that the sole evidentiary basis for many of the trial court's conclusions was plaintiffs subjective testimony regarding the nature and extent of the pain and injuries he suffered from the accident. This subjective testimony was not counterbalanced by any objective medical testimony, which defendant had been prepared to present. Instead, defendant was required to proffer her rebuttal evidence through counsel, even though it included expert testimony on medical issues. Therefore, the court concluded the trial court abused its discretion in requiring defendant to proffer her rebuttal evidence.