Issue: WHETHER A PENNSYLVANIA STATE TRIAL COURT ERRS WHEN IT ALLOWS DEFENSE COUNSEL A CROSS‑EXAMINATION REGARDING A PLAINTIFFS’ RELATED FEDERAL LAWSUIT?
|Area of Law:||Litigation & Procedure|
|Keywords:||Evidence; Manner and scope of cross examination|
|Cited Cases:||710 A.2d 1169; 725 A.2d 836; 434 Pa. Super. 173; 441 Pa. Super. 1; 746 A.2d 615; 443 Pa. Super. 602; 559 Pa. 662; 739 A.2d 163; 719 A.2d 314; 1999 Pa. Super. 37; 614 A.2d 699; 710 A.2d 620; 244 A.2d 436; 430 Pa. 583; 732 A.2d 619; 418 Pa. Super. 405|
When an appeals court reviews the lower court’s decision on a motion for post-trial relief, the reviewing court must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the party that prevailed at trial, Turney Media Fuel, Inc. v. Toll Bros., Inc., 1999 Pa. Super. 37, 725 A.2d 836, 841 (1999). The appellate court applies a deferential standard of review when the trial court has denied the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, because the decision whether to deny a new trial is within the trial court’s discretion. Collins v. Cooper, 2000 Pa. Super. 22, 746 A.2d 615, 617 (2000). “The decision whether to grant or deny a new trial is one that lies within the discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned unless the court grossly abused its discretion or committed an error of law which controlled the outcome of the case.” Turney Media, 725 A.2d at 841 (emphasis added). Importantly, the appellate court may not decide whether it would have reached the same conclusion as the trial court; rather, the reviewing court must decide whether the trial court reasonably could have reached the conclusion it reached. Id. The appellant has a heavy burden to persuade the appeals court that the trial court committed such an error. Id.
Admission or exclusion of evidence, including testimony, is within the discretion of the trial court. Turney Media, 725 A.2d at 839 (holding that the trial court’s decision to […]