Jones v. Freese

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding on the first point that the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence of Freese’s drinking intoxicating beverages prior to the accident.

In Karashin v. Haggard Hauling & Rigging, Inc., 663 S.W.2d 203 (Mo. banc 1983), the Supreme Court stated that an offer of proof must (1) demonstrate to the trial court the relevancy of the testimony offered, (2) be specific, and (3) be definite. Here, Jones’ attorney said that “His [Breese] drinking is a relevant factor to what he saw and his ability to see it.” (emphasis added). Jones did not attempt…