 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Steele v. Sedlacek11/21/2003
and other necessities. Jayne Steele admitted that Charles supported her when she was not working. She specifically admitted that the affidavit was "'full of lies'" and was intended to help her gain custody of their son.
This affidavit was not relevant to the question of any support Charles could have provided to his children had he lived. It was originally offered as part of a dissolution proceeding, and Jayne Steele admitted that it contained false statements. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to receive it into evidence.
Lisa's estate also offered a copy of a judgment and sentence from the York County District Court for a drug conviction, along with a letter from the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services which stated that Charles was sentenced on March 22, 1994, to a term of 2 to 20 years' imprisonment for the drug conviction. He was paroled on March 25, 1995. Charles' estate points out that during his imprisonment, he was on work release and his wages were garnished for child support .
Whether Charles would have been incarcerated in the future and unable to provide support for his children is purely speculative. No abuse of discretion can be found in the trial court's refusal to receive these documents.
Finally, Lisa's estate offered an abstract of Charles' driving record from the Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles. Charles' estate points out that Neb. Rev. Stat. ยง 60-504 (Reissue 1998) provides that driving abstracts "shall not be admissible as evidence in any action for damages or criminal proceedings arising out of a motor vehicle accident."
This action for damages does not arise specifically out of a motor vehicle accident caused by Charles, although Charles' death was a result of a motor vehicle accident. However, Lisa was driving at the time of the accident, and her liability had previously been determined. Charles' driving record has no relevance to his ability to earn wages to support his children. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit this document.
We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the jury to hear the proposed evidence concerning Charles' alleged drinking habits and his jail record. The cross-appeal has no merit.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Affirmed.
|