Which statement best defines an offer of proof?

• A. A brief motion to strike
• B. A narrative summary of the case
• C. A statement of the evidence that would have been offered to inform the court of its substance when excluded and not apparent from context
• D. A transcript of the prior testimony

Answer: (C)

An offer of proof is the formal way to preserve a ruling on evidence by explaining what the excluded evidence would have shown. When the court cuts off or refuses to admit a piece of evidence, the party provides a statement of the substance of that evidence so the judge, and later an appellate court, can understand its relevance and importance even though the jury didn’t hear it. This explanation is typically given as what the witness would have testified to or as a concise description of the excluded material, enough to inform the court of its substance and its context.

That’s why the option describing a statement of the evidence that would have been offered to inform the court of its substance when excluded and not apparent from context fits best. A brief motion to strike is a separate procedural action, not a description of excluded evidence. A narrative summary of the case isn’t focused on the content of the excluded evidence, and a transcript of prior testimony is simply a record of what was said in the past, not an offer explaining what would have been introduced.