 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Perry v. Magic Valley Regional Medical Center2/28/2000
arding unemployment benefits, and the trial court would instruct the jury as to the representations necessary to receive unemployment compensation. This ruling was an exercise of reason within the boundaries of the trial court's discretion.
H. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Allowing Evidence of the Settlement Agreement Between Collins and the Hospital.
The Hospital made a motion in limine to preclude Perry from mentioning the fact that Collins and the Hospital had reached a settlement agreement. The trial court ruled that the settlement could not be mentioned during voir dire or during Perry's case in chief. It deferred until trial a decision concerning use of the settlement during cross-examination. During trial, the court stated that it would not allow Perry to bring out the amount of the settlement. It did, however, allow Perry to use the fact that Collins settled with the Hospital for money, along with any prior inconsistent statements in the pleadings, to be mentioned during impeachment. Collins testified for the Hospital, and Perry used the settlement for impeachment during cross-examination. On appeal, the Hospital asserts that admission of evidence concerning the settle-ment agreement was an abuse of discretion because Idaho courts admit disclosure only of "Mary Carter" agreements.
A settlement agreement may not be offered into evidence to prove liability. I.R.E. 408. The rule does not require exclusion, however, "if the evidence is offered for another purposes, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness." I.R.E. 408. Deciding whether a settlement agreement should be disclosed to a jury rests in the broad discretion of the trial court. Doty v. Bishara, 123 Idaho 329, 335, 848 P.2d 387, 393 (1992).
The Hospital asserts that Idaho case law bars introduction of settlement agreements unless they are "Mary Carter" agreements. This is not the law in Idaho. "[I.R.E]. 408 does not require exclusion of evidence relating to compromises . . . if the evidence being introduced is used to show witness bias or prejudice." Soria v. Sierra Pac. Airlines, 111 Idaho 594, 605, 726 P.2d 706, 717 (1986). Our previous decisions clearly allow the disclosure of any settlement agreement to show bias, subject to abuse of discretion review. See id. at 606, 726 P.2d at 718 (emphasizing the broad discretion that trial courts possess in admitting or excluding evidence of settlement agreements); Quick v. Crane, 111 Idaho 759, 780, 727 P.2d 1187, 1208 (1986) (rejecting the argument that all settlements must be disclosed simply because a settling party is called as a witness, but noting that a trial court's determination of admissibility would be overturned only upon a clear showing of abuse). See also Doty v. Bishara, 123 Idaho at 335, 848 P.2d at 393 (where case was remanded on other grounds, stating in dicta, "Although we find no abuse of discretion in not disclosing the agreement, we leave to the discretion of the trial court on retrial the determination of whether the . . . greement should be disclosed to the jury.").
The trial court carefully limited Perry's use of the settlement agreement. It prohibited mentioning the settlement agreement in voir dire, opening, or the case in chief. It allowed Perry to bring the agreement up on cross-examination only to show bias. The trial court invited the Hospital to submit a jury instruction stating that the settlement could be considered for bias and not for liability, and did in fact give such an instruction. These actions demonstrate that the trial court exercised reasoned judgment in the limited admission of this evidence to show bias or prejudice. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admit
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|