Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/723421.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,737 chars

Wn.2d at 225. "Because of the trial court's considerable discretion in

administering ER 403, reversible error is found only in the exceptional

circumstance of a manifest abuse of discretion." Carson. 123 Wn.2d at 226.

Lodis assigns error to two trial court rulings regarding the admissibility of

purported evidence of Shenk's alleged age discrimination. Each ruling is

addressed, in turn, below.

However, as a preliminary matter, we note that Lodis confuses the issue

by resting his claims on the trial court's rulings in limine, even though the trial
court later reconsidered the pertinent rulings in the course of the proceedings

based on the parties' conduct at trial. As our Supreme Court has explained:

A judge may reverse or modify a pretrial ruling at any time prior to
the entry of final judgment. See State v. Kinard, 39 Wn. App. 871,
873, 696 P.2d 603, review denied. 103 Wn.2d 1041 (1985). When
this happens, a party must demonstrate the trial ruling itselfwas
erroneous in order to secure a reversal. See State v. Brooks, 20
Wn. App. 52, 60, 579 P.2d 961 (if evidence is admitted at trial
contrary to a pretrial order in limine, reversal is not required unless
the trial ruling was erroneous), review denied. 91 Wn.2d 1001
(1978).

13
             
No. 72342-1-1/14

Adcox v. Children's Orthopedic Hosp. & Med. Ctr.. 123 Wn.2d 15, 37, 864 P.2d

921 (1993). Thus, we consider only the trial court's final rulings regarding the

evidence at issue.

A

Lodis first asserts that the trial court erred by "precluding" him from

presenting evidence of his "reasonable belief that he opposed discriminatory

conduct.10

As we noted in our prior decision herein: