Often, trial lawyers minimize the importance of a timely evidentiary objection. Trial lawyers think that appellate courts review evidentiary objections under a deferential “abuse of discretion” standard and that one single such ruling will not overturn the verdict. A recent case shows that this received wisdom may be wrong in certain circumstances.
In Thomas v. Grant, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland vacated the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County’s judgment and remanded for a new trial because the trial court made four critical (and erroneous) evidentiary rulings. The Thomas court initially supports seasoned trial lawyers, noting that appellate courts generally review rulings on admission of evidence pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard. Not all evidentiary rulings are created equal, however. When the trial court’s ruling involves a pure legal question, it is reviewed under the more exacting de novo standard. Pure legal questions include, among other issues, whether evidence is hearsay.
In Thomas, Defendant Jourdan Grant hit the vehicle in which Plaintiff Micaa Thomas was traveling, allegedly causing headaches, dizziness, increased sensitivity to light and noise, and the inability to remember or express certain words. Grant conceded liability and the case proceeded as a damages-only jury trial.
Thomas’ counsel successfully preserved a number of appellate issues, including three erroneous hearsay rulings by the trial court. For clarity, I have re-phrased them as the appellate court ruled. First, testimony from Thomas’s mother regarding Thomas’s trouble with “word-finding” was admissible because the mother was testifying about her observations of her daughter’s verbal troubles, not because anything her daughter was saying was true. Second, testimony from Thomas about when and how her friends found out about college scholarships was not hearsay because it showed the effect on Thomas, not whether her friends’ statements were true. Third, Grant’s testimony regarding Thomas’ father’s out-of-court statement that a crack in his car’s bumper was present prior to the accident was hearsay. The father was never subject to cross-examination at trial about that statement, nor was he confronted with his alleged inconsistent statement during his trial testimony. Because each of these evidentiary issues involved a pure question of law, the appellate court was duty bound to analyze each of these rulings de novo. The trial court erred on all three evidentiary rulings.
Thomas’ mother’s testimony regarding Thomas’ trouble word-finding was important to damages. Thomas’ own testimony about her scholarships was important to establishing the fear and stress she experienced in determining whether she would fully recover in time to receive scholarships. Grant’s testimony that Thomas’ father said that the car bumper was cracked before the accident undermined the severity of the crash and called the father’s credibility into question. These errors (plus one other objection regarding the scope of cross-examination), when taken together, constituted reversible error.
Implicit in a trial lawyer’s statement that an appellate court will not overturn a verdict on one evidentiary ruling alone is the assumption that the one ruling will be the only one that matters. Thomas teaches that the trial lawyer can be wrong on that score as well. In general, evidentiary rulings do not result in reversal unless there was a probability (as opposed to a mere possibility) of prejudice. The cumulative effects of erroneous evidentiary rulings can constitute sufficient prejudice to require overturning a verdict, even if each of the rulings, by themselves, would have been deemed harmless.
Opinions and conclusions in this post are solely those of the author unless otherwise indicated. The information contained in this blog is general in nature and is not offered and cannot be considered as legal advice for any particular situation. Any federal tax advice provided in this communication is not intended or written by the author to be used, and cannot be used by the recipient, for the purpose of avoiding penalties which may be imposed on the recipient by the IRS. Please contact the author if you would like to receive written advice in a format which complies with IRS rules and may be relied upon to avoid penalties.
[View source.]
