## Facts

- Oscar Guillen and Joi Wilson spent an evening drinking together.
- Afterward, Wilson sustained significant facial injuries, and the State of Indiana charged Guillen with battery.
- Guillen’s defense theory was that Wilson’s injuries were accidental and occurred because she was intoxicated, not because Guillen battered her.
- To support that theory, Guillen sought to introduce evidence of specific prior incidents in which Wilson allegedly acted recklessly while intoxicated.
- The State filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude those specific incidents as improper character evidence.
- The trial court granted the motion in limine and did not allow Guillen to present the prior-incident evidence.
- Guillen was convicted and appealed, arguing the exclusion prevented him from fully presenting his accidental-injury defense.

## Issues

1. Whether Guillen preserved appellate review of the exclusion of Wilson’s alleged prior reckless acts while intoxicated when he did not make a proper offer of proof at trial under Indiana Evidence Rule 103(a)(2).
2. If the claim was preserved, whether excluding the prior specific-act evidence affected Guillen’s substantial rights (or was harmless) given the other evidence available to present his defense.

## Decision

- The Indiana Court of Appeals held Guillen waived his challenge to the exclusion because he did not make an offer to prove the excluded evidence, and the substance of the evidence was not sufficiently shown on the record to satisfy Indiana Evidence Rule 103(a)(2).
- The court also concluded that, even if the exclusion were considered, Guillen did not show that the ruling affected a substantial right because he was able to present his defense theory through other means, including his own testimony and cross-examination.
- The court affirmed Guillen’s battery conviction.

## Legal Principles

- A party generally may not claim error in the exclusion of evidence on appeal unless the party made the substance of the evidence known to the trial court by an offer of proof, or the substance was apparent from the context. (Ind. Evidence Rule 103(a)(2).)
- A ruling on a motion in limine does not, by itself, preserve an evidentiary claim for appeal; the proponent must take the steps required at trial to create a record (including an offer of proof when evidence is excluded).
- Even if a trial court errs in excluding evidence, reversal is not warranted unless the exclusion affects a substantial right; evidentiary error that does not affect a substantial right is treated as harmless. (Ind. Evidence Rule 103(a).)
- Appellate review of evidentiary rulings is generally for abuse of discretion, but a party must first preserve the issue with an adequate record.

## Conclusion

In *Guillen v. State*, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a battery conviction where the defendant claimed the victim’s injuries were accidental and sought to admit specific prior instances of the victim’s reckless intoxicated behavior. The court held the claim was waived because Guillen failed to make an offer of proof identifying the excluded evidence for the record, and it further held that any exclusion did not warrant reversal because Guillen was still able to present a vigorous defense through other testimony and cross-examination, so no substantial right was affected.


Guillen v. State, 829 N.E.2d 142 (2005)