1.13Standard of Review

“A trial court’s decision to admit evidence ‘will not be disturbed absent an abuse of . . . discretion.’” People v Musser, 494 Mich 337, 348 (2013), quoting People v McDaniel, 469 Mich 409, 412 (2003). In reviewing evidentiary decisions, “[a]n abuse of discretion is found only if an unprejudiced person, considering the facts on which the trial court acted, would say that there was no excuse for the ruling made.” People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 113 (2001). However, “[a] decision on a close evidentiary question ordinarily cannot be an abuse of discretion.” Id.

Committee Tip:

The abuse of discretion standard is highly deferential to the trial court’s decision. Additionally, close evidentiary calls are typically not the subject of an abuse of discretion. These points underscore the importance of: (1) recognition by the trial court of its discretion; and (2) a clear record reflecting the court’s decisional process.

 

If the decision involves a preliminary question of law, such as the meaning of a rule of evidence or whether a rule of evidence or statute precludes the admission of the evidence, it is reviewed de novo. Waknin v Chamberlain, 467 Mich 329, 332 (2002); People v Katt, 468 Mich 272, 278 (2003). “Therefore, when such preliminary questions are at issue, . . . an abuse of discretion [will be found] when a trial court admits evidence that is inadmissible as a matter of law.” Katt, 468 Mich at 278.

“An error in the admission or the exclusion of evidence is not a ground for reversal unless refusal to take this action appears inconsistent with substantial justice. Under this rule, reversal is required only if the error is prejudicial. The defendant claiming error must show that it is more probable than not that the alleged error affected the outcome of the trial in light of the weight of the properly admitted evidence.” People v McLaughlin, 258 Mich App 635, 650 (2003) (internal citations omitted). See also MRE 103(a); MRE 103(e). “An error is outcome determinative if it undermined the reliability of the verdict and, in making this determination, a court should focus on the nature of the error in light of the weight and strength of the untainted evidence.” Musser, 494 Mich at 348 (quotation marks and citations omitted).