Colo. R. Evid. 103
Once the court makes a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.
(Federal Rule Identical.)
CRE 103
Annotation Law reviews. For article, "Preserving Issues for Appeal" discussing the requirement of an offer of proof, see 20 Colo. Law. 879 (1991). For article, "Preservation of Error Through the Use of Motions In Limine", see 24 Colo. Law. 781 (1995). For article, "Offers of Proof", see 31 Colo. Law. 85 (January 2002). For article, "C.R.E. 103(a) and Harmless Error", see 33 Colo. Law. 91 (November 2004). Failure to object in the trial court on the grounds asserted on appeal is deemed to be a waiver of the objection. People v. Watson, 668 P.2d 965 (Colo. App. 1983); People v. Girtman, 695 P.2d 759 (Colo. App. 1984); People v. Browning, 809 P.2d 1086 (Colo. App. 1990); People v. Renfro, 117 P.3d 43 (Colo. App. 2004). But a timely specific objection at trial preserves an evidentiary issue on appeal. Hancock v. State, 758 P.2d 1372 (Colo. 1988); Tran v. Hilburn, 948 P.2d 52 (Colo. App. 1997). Ruling admitting evidence overturned only where prejudicial effect outweighs probative value. Only where the prejudicial effect of an evidentiary item outweighs its probative value will the trial court's evidentiary ruling admitting evidence be overturned as an abuse of discretion. People v. Abbott, 638 P.2d 781 (Colo. 1981). A ruling that erroneously admits evidence requires reversal only when it affects a substantial right of the party against whom the ruling is made. People v. Gilmore, 97 P.3d 123 (Colo. App. 2003). In order to preserve for review an objection to the exclusion of evidence, a proper offer of proof must be made and must demonstrate that evidence is admissible as well as relevant to the issues in the case. Melton By and Through Melton v. Larrabee, 832 P.2d 1069 (Colo. App. 1992); Vu v. Fouts, 924 P.2d 1129 (Colo. App. 1996). Motion in limine may constitute "timely objection" for purposes of this rule if it contains specific objections to the admission of specific items of anticipated evidence. Uptain v. Huntington Lab, Inc., 723 P.2d 1322 (Colo. 1986). An offer of proof to preserve for review an objection to the exclusion of evidence must demonstrate that evidence is admissible as well as relevant to the issues in the case. Melton v. Larrabee, 832 P.2d 1069 (Colo. App. 1992). Defendant could not predicate error on trial court's denial of admission of hearsay evidence; since defendant made no offer of proof, it was not apparent from the context what the substance of the testimony would have been, and defense counsel made no objection to the denial. People v. Hoover, 165 P.3d 784 (Colo. App. 2006). Subsection (a)(2) is applied in Kedar v. Pub. Serv. Co., 709 P.2d 15 (Colo. App. 1985); Silva v. Wilcox, 223 P.3d 127 (Colo. App. 2009). Evidentiary issues not brought to the attention of the trial court can only be considered under plain error standard. People v. Koon, 724 P.2d 1367 (Colo. App. 1986). Generally, an offer of proof should not be refused, since the purpose of such offer is to inform the trial court of what counsel expects to prove by the excluded evidence and to ensure that an appellate court will be able to evaluate the scope and effect of the ruling to determine whether the exclusion constituted reversible error. People v. Gillis, 883 P.2d 554 (Colo. App. 1994). Reversible error where trial court admitted summaries of hospital records into evidence where original records were not made available to defendant prior to trial. Summary evidence constituted majority of prosecution's case and its admission without proper foundation was prejudicial error. It deprived defendant of an accurate opportunity to challenge the accuracy of the summaries and to cross-examine the witness who presented the evidence. People v. McDonald, 15 P.3d 788 (Colo. App. 2000). Doctors' diagnoses, recited and summarized in administrative law judge decision, concerned the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries, which were central issues in the case. Therefore their admission could not be considered harmless error. Leiting v. Mutha, 58 P.3d 1049 (Colo. App. 2002). No reversible error where trial court refused to allow defendant to present an offer of proof as to matters that were clearly not relevant, the nature of the evidence to be elicited was clearly shown by the record, and there was overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt. People v. Gillis, 883 P.2d 554 (Colo. App. 1994). No reversible error, where two letters were admitted into evidence over objection, but all substantive statements contained in letters had already been established at trial by properly admitted evidence. Bunnett v. Smallwood, 768 P.2d 736 (Colo. App. 1988), rev'd on other grounds, 793 P.2d 157 (Colo. 1990). No reversible error where trial court refused to admit evidence on alleged negligent construction where no causal link between that construction and the creation of a fire hazard was established. Melton By and Through Melton v. Larrabee, 832 P.2d 1069 (Colo. App. 1992). No reversible error where administrative hearing officer did not allow certain opinion testimony at teacher's disciplinary hearing where record reflects that, despite ruling, petitioner was permitted to present a substantial amount of character evidence and hearing officer concluded that petitioner was a person of good character. Knowles v. Bd. of Educ., 857 P.2d 553 (Colo. App. 1993). Appellate review of trial court's determination pursuant to § 13-25-129 regarding admissibility of child's hearsay statement should be based upon record made at in-limine hearing and may go beyond such record only if issue of harmless error or plain error is raised. People v. Bowers, 801 P.2d 511 (Colo. 1990). Reversal of a verdict on the grounds that the prevailing party violated an in limine evidentiary order is warranted only where the alleged violation of such order is clear. Where counsel stated in opening arguments that certain evidence would be excluded but did not reveal the details of the excluded evidence, there was no clear violation of the in limine order excluding such evidence. Van Schaack v. Van Schaack Holdings, Ltd., 856 P.2d 15 (Colo. App. 1992). Both the question whether claims should be bifurcated for trial and the issue whether otherwise competent evidence is relevant to the claim or defense presented are matters that rest within a trial court's sound discretion. A trial court's refusal to admit evidence will constitute grounds for reversal only if such refusal affects one of the party's substantial rights. Arnold v. Colo. State Hosp., 910 P.2d 104 (Colo. App. 1995). Applied in Conrad v. City & County of Denver, 656 P.2d 662 (Colo. 1982); People v. Shannon, 683 P.2d 792 (Colo. 1984); People v. Viduya, 703 P.2d 1281 (Colo. 1985); People v. Wafai, 713 P.2d 1354 (Colo. App. 1985), aff'd, 750 P.2d 37 (Colo. 1988); People v. Lucero, 724 P.2d 1374 (Colo. App. 1986); Banek v. Thomas, 733 P.2d 1171 (Colo. 1986); People v. Roybal, 775 P.2d 67 (Colo. App. 1989); -Knutzen v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 781 P.2d 164 (Colo. App. 1989), cert. denied, 785 P.2d 917 (Colo. 1989); People v. Bowers, 801 P.2d 511 (Colo. 1990); Cherry Creek Sch. Dist. v. Voelker, 859 P.2d 805 (Colo. 1993); People v. Seacrist, 874 P.2d 438 (Colo. App. 1993); Itin v. Bertrand T. Ungar, P.C., 17 P.3d 129 (Colo. 2000).