(mem. op.) (quoting Akukoro v. Akukoro, No. 01-12-01072-CV, 2013 WL 6729661, at *6 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 19, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.))
Failure to preserve the excluded evidence in the record through an offer of proof or bill of exception results in waiver of any error in its exclusion. See Akukoro v. Akukoro, No. 01-12-01072-CV, 2013 WL 6729661, at *6 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 19, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.); see TEX. R. EVID. 103(A)(2) (error may not be based on ruling which excludes evidence unless substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer, or was apparent from the context).
"While the reviewing court may sometimes be able to discern from the record the general nature of the evidence and the propriety of the trial court's ruling, it cannot, without an offer of proof, determine whether exclusion of the evidence was harmful." Compton, 428 S.W.3d at 886 (quoting Akukoro v. Akukoro, No. 01-12-01072-CV, 2013 WL 6729661, at 18 *6-7 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 19, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.)). Thus, failure to demonstrate the substance of the excluded evidence through an offer of proof or bill of exception results in waiver of any error in its exclusion.
While the reviewing court may sometimes be able to discern from the record the general nature of the evidence and the propriety of the trial court's ruling, it cannot, without an offer of proof, determine whether exclusion of the evidence was harmful. Akukoro v. Akukoro, No. 01-12-01072-CV, 2013 WL 6729661, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 19, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.). "Texas recognizes two types of offers to preserve error: the offer of proof (formerly referred to as an informal bill of exception) and the formal bill of exception."
Even when the reviewing court may " ‘be able to discern from the record the general nature of the evidence and the propriety of the trial court's ruling,’ " an offer showing the evidence's substance is still critical because, without it, the court cannot " ‘determine whether exclusion of the evidence was harmful.’ " Compton v. Pfannenstiel , 428 S.W.3d 881, 886 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (quoting Akukoro v. Akukoro , No. 01-12-01072-CV, 2013 WL 6729661, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 19, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.)). Failure to demonstrate the substance of the excluded evidence results in waiver.
To preserve error concerning an exclusion of evidence, the complaining party "must actually offer the evidence and secure an adverse ruling from the [trial] court." Akukoro v. Akukoro, No. 01-12-01072-CV, 2013 WL 6729661, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 19, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.); Fletcher v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 57 S.W.3d 602, 606 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied). Although the reviewing court may sometimes be able to discern from the record the general nature of the evidence and the propriety of the trial court's ruling, it cannot, without an offer of proof, determine whether exclusion of the evidence was harmful.
To preserve error concerning an exclusion of evidence, the complaining party "must actually offer the evidence and secure an adverse ruling from the [trial] court." Akukoro v. Akukoro, No. 01-12-01072-CV, 2013 WL 6729661, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 19, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.); Fletcher v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 57 S.W.3d 602, 606 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied). Although the reviewing court may sometimes be able to discern from the record the general nature of the evidence and the propriety of the trial court's ruling, it cannot, without an offer of proof, determine whether exclusion of the evidence was harmful.
"'While the reviewing court may sometimes be able to discern from the record the general nature of the evidence and the propriety of the trial court's ruling, it cannot, without an offer of proof, determine whether exclusion of the evidence was harmful.'" Compton, 428 S.W.3d at 886 (quoting Akukoro v. Akukoro, No. 01-12-01072-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 15302, at *17-18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 19, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.)). Thus, failure to demonstrate the substance of the excluded evidence through an offer of proof or bill of exception results in waiver of any error in its exclusion. Bobbora v. Unitrin Ins. Servs., 255 S.W.3d 331, 335 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.).
To preserve any complaint against a trial court's exclusion of evidence, the complaining party must demonstrate the substance of the excluded evidence through an offer of proof or bill of exception unless the substance of the evidence is apparent from the context. Tex.R. Evid. 103(a)(2); see also Sink v. Sink, 364 S.W.3d 340, 347 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2012, no pet.); Fletcher v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 57 S.W.3d 602, 606 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied); Akukoro v. Akukoro, No. 01–12–01072–CV, 2013 WL 6729661, at *6 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“While the reviewing court may sometimes be able to discern from the record the general nature of the evidence and the propriety of the trial court's ruling, it cannot, without an offer of proof, determine whether exclusion of the evidence was harmful.”). Compton neither made an offer of proof before the trial court nor filed a bill of exception.