State ex rel. J.M. v. Celebrezze

Citations

• 2023 Ohio 536

Syllabus

Mandamus, limitation of time for trial, Evid.R. 611(A), adequate remedy at law, abuse of discretion. Pursuant to Evid.R. 611(A), a trial court judge may impose reasonable limits on direct examination and cross-examination based on a variety of concerns, such as harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness's safety, repetitive testimony, or marginally relevant interrogation. In addition, the imposition of time limits on the examination and cross-examination falls squarely within the sound discretion of the trial court judge and can only be addressed, as an abuse of discretion, through a direct appeal. Finally, the fact that a postjudgment appeal may be time-consuming and expensive to pursue does not render an appeal inadequate so as to justify extraordinary relief through mandamus.