Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintifftrialtestimonymotionsummary judgmentfelonyjury trialmotion for summary judgmentadmissibilitycredibility
trialmotionwillfelonymisdemeanorprobationexpert witnessdocketadmissibilityprobation violationdumping

Related Cases

Chrispens v. Coastal Refining & Marketing, Inc., 257 Kan. 745, 897 P.2d 104
View Case »
Halverson v. Convenient Food Mart, Inc., 69 F.R.D. 331, 21 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1301, 1975-1 Trade Cases P 60,254
View Case »
In re Steinhardt Partners, L.P., 9 F.3d 230, 62 USLW 2318, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,818, 27 Fed.R.Serv.3d 726
View Case »
Niesig v. Team I, 76 N.Y.2d 363, 558 N.E.2d 1030, 559 N.Y.S.2d 493, 59 USLW 2041
View Case »
Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Developers Diversified Realty Corp., 247 F.R.D. 567, 69 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1035
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Security National Bank of Sioux City, Iowa v. Abbott Laboratories, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2013 WL 12140998

Facts

The plaintiff, Security National Bank, as Conservator for JMK, filed claims against Abbott Laboratories, alleging product defect, breach of warranty, and fraud related to the powdered infant formula that was the source of the bacteria causing JMK's injuries. The case proceeded to jury trial after the court granted in part and denied in part Abbott's motion for summary judgment and denied Abbott's motion to exclude the plaintiff's proposed expert testimony. Both parties filed motions in limine regarding the admissibility of evidence in anticipation of the trial.

In its July 18, 2013, Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence Of Prior Convictions And Drug Use (docket no. 112), the Conservator seeks to exclude the following three categories of evidence: (1) evidence of a 1993 theft conviction of Megan Surber, the injured minor child's mother; (2) evidence of the prior criminal convictions of and past drug use by Troy Kunkel, the injured minor child's father; and (3) evidence of the 2003 misdemeanor conviction for possession of marijuana of Gerald M. Goldhaber, one of the Conservator's expert witnesses.

Issue

The main legal issues involved the admissibility of evidence related to the parties' past conduct, specifically concerning 'bad acts' evidence and how it relates to the credibility of witnesses.

The admissibility of much of the evidence still in dispute is 'bad acts' evidence, either 'bad acts' of a witness, controlled by the interaction of Rules 608, 609, and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, or 'bad acts' of a party, controlled by Rule 404(b).

Rule

The court applied several rules from the Federal Rules of Evidence, including Rules 403, 404(b), 608, and 609, to determine the admissibility of evidence based on its probative value versus its prejudicial effect.

Under Rule 608, extrinsic evidence of a witness's 'bad acts,' not resulting in a felony conviction, is 'not admissible … in order to attack or support the witness's character for truthfulness.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the admissibility of evidence under the relevant rules, focusing on the balance of probative value against potential prejudice. It found that while some evidence of past convictions could be relevant to witness credibility, the specific details of certain convictions could distract the jury and lead to decisions based on improper emotional reasoning. The court ultimately allowed some evidence while excluding others based on these considerations.

The weighing of probative value against prejudicial effect is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.

Conclusion

The court ruled that evidence of Mr. Kunkel's felony conviction could be admitted for impeachment purposes, but details regarding the nature of the conviction would be excluded to prevent undue prejudice. The motions in limine were considered fully submitted without oral arguments.

Therefore, this part of the Conservator's Motion In Limine is denied, to the extent that Abbott may impeach Mr. Kunkel with the fact of a prior felony conviction, but granted to the extent that evidence of the nature of the felony as 'child endangerment' or the details of the incident giving rise to the charge will be excluded.

Who won?

The court's rulings on the motions in limine were mixed, with the Conservator prevailing in part by excluding certain evidence while Abbott prevailed in part by allowing other evidence related to Mr. Kunkel's credibility.

Abbott does not oppose exclusion of evidence of Mr. Kunkel's assault conviction or his illegal dumping conviction, but does oppose exclusion of the evidence of the convictions for child endangerment and probation violations, as well as evidence of drug use.

You must be