Lakefront Management Authority v. J & J Partners, L.L.C.

LAKEFRONT MANAGEMENT * NO. 2021-CA-0102
AUTHORITY
* COURT OF APPEAL
VERSUS
* FOURTH CIRCUIT
J & J PARTNERS, L.L.C.
* STATE OF LOUISIANA

*

*
*******

SCJ
JENKINS, J. CONCURS IN THE RESULT WITH REASONS.

I respectfully concur with the majority opinion. I write separately to address

the appellant’s request to consider the rebuttal testimony proffered at trial.

On the third day of trial, LMA sought to call three rebuttal witnesses,

namely, Louis Capo, Paul Dimitrios, and Wilma Heaton. The trial court refused to

hear the testimony of LMA’s rebuttal witnesses, but allowed the testimony to be

proffered. The trial court reasoned: 1) the subject matter of Mr. Capo’s testimony

was irrelevant; 2) Mr. Dimitrios testimony of what is considered a permanent

improvement had already been heard; and 3) it would be improper for Ms. Heaton

to testify because she was present in the court and heard the other testimony

provided.

“The very purpose of requiring a proffer is to preserve excluded testimony

so that the testimony (whatever its nature) is available for appellate review.

Without a proffer, appellate courts have no way of ascertaining the nature of the

excluded testimony.” Hightower v. Schwartz, 2014-0431, pp. 8-9 (La. App. 4 Cir.

10/15/14), 151 So.3d 903, 907.

Upon review of the proffered testimony, I find the testimony cumulative and

repetitive. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of

LMA’s proffered rebuttal witnesses.