Rebelwood Apartments RP, LP v. English
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00561-SCT Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-00561-SCT ; 2009-CA-00561-SCT ; 2009-CA-00561-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-23-2010 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Exclusion of evidence - Police reports - M.R.E. 803(8) - M.R.E. 102 - M.R.E. 106 - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 402 - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Loss of future earnings Judge(s) Concurring: Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Dickinson, Lamar and Pierce, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Waller, C.J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Kitchens, J., Concurs in Part and in Result With Separate Written Opinion. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Chandler, J., Concurs in Part and Dissents in Part With Separate Written Opinion. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-30-2009 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: At the conclusion of a four-day trial, a jury returned a $3,000,000 verdict against Rebelwood. Case Number: 251-08-45CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Rebelwood Apartments RP, LP, Rebelwood Apartments TC, L.P., Interstate Realty Management Company, Aries Protection Agency and Stephan Milton Stafford |
DONNA BROWN JACOBS, JOSHUA J. WIENER, ANDREW N. ALEXANDER, III |
||
| Appellee: | Dwight English, Guardian of Deonte Deon English, Dwight English on Behalf of Deonte Deon English, Individually and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Crystal Coleman, Deceased | JAMES ASHLEY OGDEN, JAMES W. SMITH, JR., PRECIOUS TYRONE MARTIN |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Wrongful death - Exclusion of evidence - Police reports - M.R.E. 803(8) - M.R.E. 102 - M.R.E. 106 - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 402 - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Loss of future earnings |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dwight English, the father of the youngest child of Crystal Coleman, filed a wrongful death suit charging that the managers and owners of Rebelwood Apartments, an apartment complex in South Jackson, failed to provide adequate security. At the conclusion of a four-day trial, a jury returned a $3,000,000 verdict against Rebelwood. Rebelwood appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Exclusion of evidence English moved pretrial to exclude “any and all use of the Jackson [police] report that contains statements from witnesses that are hearsay, arguing that the prejudicial value outweighs the probative value, and there are no MRE 803 exceptions that would allow the hearsay statements.” Rebelwood replied that the statement of the person who killed Crystal and/or the portions of the police reports containing facts learned in the investigation were admissible, conceding that portions might appropriately be excluded. Even though police reports, if offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted are hearsay and the information within them may be based on hearsay, they may be admissible under the hearsay exception in M.R.E. 803(8). Although admissible, a trial court need not admit a report in whole or in part, where the sources of information or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness. In this case, the trial court abdicated its responsibility to perform a trustworthiness analysis. A trial judge should consider the safeguards in the other rules of evidence, such as relevance and prejudice. Here, significant portions of the police report were admissible, for numerous indicia of trustworthiness were present and the report contained a signed statement by a witness. The relevance is exceedingly clear, for when English’s experts provided testimony contrary to the findings of fact contained in the police report, Rebelwood was denied a right to effectively cross-examine the experts on their testimony that was refuted by the police report, including the underlying facts upon which their opinions were based. The result was that the jury was provided a distorted and prejudicial impression of the contents of the police report, and Rebelwood’s counsel was unable to counteract this prejudicial impression by cross-examination. As a result of the trial court’s decision to exclude the entirety of the police reports, and then not to reconsider his rulings as the case unfolded, witnesses were not permitted to testify that they had concluded that the shooting had occurred somewhere other than at Rebelwood. The erroneous ruling allowed plaintiff’s expert to testify with impunity and without fear of exposure that “[T]here is no documentation, no written statements or anybody to come forward to say that it did not happen [at Rebelwood].” The trial court should have known that the expert’s statement was untrue. In fact, repeated references and statements to the contrary exist throughout the investigative reports. The statement violated the purpose and construction of the rules of evidence as stated in M.R.E. 102. The codification of the common-law doctrine of completeness underlies M.R.E. 106. When one party has made use of a portion of a document, narratives, such that misunderstanding or distortion can be averted only through presentation of another portion, the material required for completeness is ipso facto relevant and therefore admissible under M.R.E. 401 and 402. Here, the documented narrative reports and affidavit and factual investigation satisfy the Rules’ requirement of trustworthiness. The trial court abused its discretion in failing to perform a trustworthiness analysis before excluding the police report in its entirety and in failing to allow cross-examination using the police report when each liability expert testified that he had relied at least in part on the excluded document to formulate his opinion. Issue 2: Loss of future earnings Mississippi law requires the trial court to ensure that proposed expert testimony satisfies M.R.E. 702. Rebelwood argues that permitting the plaintiff’s economist to base her calculations on national-average income and an earnings capacity approach did not satisfy Daubert standards in that her proposed opinion was not based on sufficient facts or data as required by M.R.E. 702. Expert testimony must be relevant and based on fact. The expert in this case based her opinion, including for the year of Crystal’s death, on the national-average salaries of high-school graduates and registered nurses with a bachelor of science degree, totally ignoring Crystal’s actual income before her death. Even if Coleman had begun a nursing-assistant training program immediately, and then had gone on to nursing school, it would have taken years for her to reach an annual salary of $38,000. Rebelwood argues that the expert injected race into her testimony to justify the use of national averages. Race was injected at least twice in the expert’s testimony: first, upon prompting by English’s counsel, and second, when asked by Rebelwood’s counsel how she could assume a base income of more than $38,000. It is error to allow irrelevant, prejudicial and inflammatory statements. The paramount concern of a court awarding damages for lost future earnings is to provide the victim with a sum of money that will, in fact, replace the money that he would have earned. The trial court in this case abused its discretion in admitting the expert’s testimony. The testimony fails the requirement that it be based on sufficient facts or data. In limiting the basis for the lost income stream to actual income, courts do not determine the value of injured people or speculate on their capacity for more remunerative employment. Our law is designed to assure a fair and predictable determination to replace what has been lost. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
