Bascelli v. Randy, Inc.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentOlszewski, Judge
I respectfully dissent. The majority concludes that the offer of proof was “adequate”. After reviewing the record and the briefs, I am constrained to disagree.
*265The offer when made must disclose all facts necessary to establish the admissibility of the testimony sought to be elicited. Further, the party making the offer must state its purpose in such a manner that the court may perceive its relevance. Cockcroft v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., 133 Pa.Super. 598, 3 A.2d 184 (1938); Hill v. Truby, 117 Pa. 320, 11 A. 89 (1887); see Weinstein on Evidence Sec. 103(03) (“counsel must first be prepared to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Rogan EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
- Zubrod v. KuhnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Cockcroft v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Hill v. TrubySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887