The opinion of the court was delivered by: Senior Judge Friedman
BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge, HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior, Judge, HONORABLE JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge.
Donald L. Allen (Allen) appeals from the April 1, 2008, order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court), which denied Allen's motion for post-trial relief in the nature of a new trial (Motion). We affirm.
On October 11, 1999, Allen was involved in a motor vehicle accident with a tow truck driven by Robert D. Thomas (Thomas), who, at the time of the accident, was acting in the scope of his employment with the Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA). Allen filed a civil action against Thomas and the PPA, asserting that he sustained injuries as a result of the accident and seeking monetary damages. On December 18, 2007, following voir dire and jury selection, the trial commenced, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Thomas and PPA. Thereafter, Allen filed his Motion; Thomas and PPA replied; and the trial court heard argument on the Motion. The trial court denied the Motion and entered judgment on the jury verdict on April 16, 2008.
That same day, Allen filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court,*fn1 and, as directed by the trial court, he filed a Statement of Matters Complained Of On Appeal (Statement) pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b). In the Statement, Allen asserted that the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion during the voir dire proceedings by refusing to allow Allen to question potential jurors regarding their personal feelings on tort reform. According to Allen, the trial court requested counsel to submit additional voir dire questions to the court, and, although he submitted approximately forty-three voir dire questions inquiring into potential jurors' beliefs regarding tort reform, personal injury claims and lawyers, (R.R. at 44a-55a), the trial court improperly limited the voir dire only to questions within the framework of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure (Pa. R.C.P), particularly Pa. R.C.P. No. 220.1,*fn2 and the Philadelphia County written juror questionnaire.*fn3 Allen contends that, as a result, he was precluded from learning the prospective jurors' beliefs about tort reform so that he could determine whether or not to challenge a juror for cause or use a peremptory strike.
In its Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial court responded to Allen's allegations and explicitly denied that it limited the scope of the voir dire questioning. To the contrary, the trial court stressed that counsel had the opportunity to ask questions of the full panel of jurors and to conduct voir dire of each potential juror in camera. In fact, the trial court noted that it advised counsel that questioning would be in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. and relevant case law, including Capoferri v. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 893 A.2d 133 (Pa. Super.) (holding that, in cases where prospective jurors may have been exposed to tort reform and medical malpractice propaganda, the prudent course of action is to allow questioning of potential jurors about their attitudes regarding those issues to determine whether each individual could serve in a fair and impartial manner), appeal denied, 591 Pa. 659, 916 A.2d 630 (2006).
The trial court noted further that counsel did not request the recording of the voir dire proceedings, as required by the trial court's procedures;*fn4 thus, there was no record of the voir dire proceedings or the pre-trial conference regarding voir dire questioning. Citing Hrinkevich v. Hrinkevich, 676 A.2d 237 (Pa. Super. 1996), for the proposition that what is not of record does not exist for the purposes of appellate review, the trial court asserted that Allen's appeal should be quashed for lack of reviewable evidence. The trial court also concluded that Allen waived any challenge to the voir dire proceedings. The trial court observed that Allen failed to submit any part of the transcript to the trial court, and, therefore, he cannot cite to any objection made to the voir dire process, as required by Pa. R.C.P. No. 227.1(b) (stating that an appellant cannot succeed in a post-trial motion when his counsel failed to object to the perceived error at the time it occurred).*fn5
On appeal,*fn6 Allen first argues that he did not waive the issue regarding the limitation of his voir dire questioning and that, in fact, he preserved the issue during the trial. We agree.
Although Allen failed to include any notes of testimony with his Statement, Allen subsequently sought and was granted leave to supplement the record pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1926 (allowing for the correction or modification of the record). Allen then submitted the transcripts from December 18, 2007, December 19, 2007, and March 26, 2008, and the trial court certified these transcripts as true and correct on January 7, 2009. (Allen's Supp. R.R. at 385a, 401a-02a.) A review of the December 19, 2007, transcript reveals that Allen objected to the trial court's alleged limitation of his voir dire questions and that the trial court overruled the objection. (R.R. at 272a.)
Nevertheless, the question remains whether we may review the issue here absent a record of the voir dire proceedings.*fn7 As the trial court correctly noted, an appellate court cannot consider anything that is not part of the record. Hrinkevich. Moreover, we cannot reverse based on the trial court's abuse of discretion without evidence in the record showing an abuse of discretion. See Paden v. Baker Concrete Construction, Inc., 540 Pa. 409, 412, 658 A.2d 341, 343 (1995) (emphasis added) (stating that "[a]n abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will, as shown by the evidence or the record, discretion is abused." (quoting Mielcuszny v. Rosol, 317 Pa. 91, 93-94, 176 A. 236, 237 (1934)).
Allen asserts that the existing record now contains evidence to support his claims because he properly supplemented the original record with information describing what occurred during the voir dire proceeding.*fn8 We disagree.
In granting Allen's request to supplement the record, this court directed Allen to submit the additional statements to the trial court for its approval, as required by Pa. R.A.P. 1923 and 1924. (12/08/2008 Order of the Commonwealth Court, Allen's Supp. R.R. at 401a-02a.) Thereafter, PPA and Thomas objected to the statements; moreover, the trial court did not approve the statements and ordered that the statements "shall not be filed with the Commonwealth Court as part of the supplemental certified record." (1/14/09 Order of the trial court, Allen's Supp. R.R. at 386a.) Thus, these statements are not a part of the record. Pa. R.A.P. 1923 and 1924.
Allen next argues that a statement made by the trial court and reflected in the December 19, 2007, transcript supports his position that the trial court prevented him from questioning potential jurors about tort reform. On that day, the following ...