City of Alamo v. Casas

• Citation: 960 S.W.2d 240
• Decision Date: 04 December 1997
• Docket Number: No. 13-94-043-CV,13-94-043-CV
• Parties: CITY OF ALAMO, Appellant, v. Armando CASAS and Amelia Casas, individually and in their respective capacities as Next Friend of Armando Rene Casas, a Minor, Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas

Page 240

960 S.W.2d 240

CITY OF ALAMO, Appellant, v. Armando CASAS and Amelia Casas, individually and in their

respective capacities as Next Friend of Armando

Rene Casas, a Minor, Appellees.

No. 13-94-043-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas,

Corpus Christi.

Dec. 4, 1997.

Rehearing Overruled Feb. 12, 1997.

Israel Ramon, Jr., Law Offices of Israel Ramon, Jr., James E. Darling, Marcel C. Notzon, III, Ramon & Cantu, McAllen, for appellant.

Laurence W. Watts, Watts & Associates, Houston, Joseph A. Connors, III, McAllen, Michael McEnrue, Mosier & McEnrue, Stephen P. Glover, Groves & Glover, Houston, for appellees.

Before YANEZ, CHAVEZ and RODRIGUEZ, JJ.

OPINION

YANEZ, Justice.

The City of Alamo (hereinafter "the City") brings this appeal from a judgment rendered against it after a jury trial. ¹ As next friends of their son Armando Rene Casas (hereinafter "Rene"), and in their individual capacities, Armando and Amelia Casas brought suit against the City, its police department, Alamo Police Chief Ruben DeLeon, and two other officers (Ruben Espinzoa and James Boreman), for damages resulting from Rene's arrest and subsequent harassment by the defendants. After the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, the trial court rendered judgment against the City in the amount of $1,095,021.12. By twenty-five points of error, the City challenges the judgment. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

NATURE OF THE CASE

The Casases' lawsuit was based on events which occurred in 1986 in connection with the arrest of Rene. On April 20, 1986, Rene offered to sell a bicycle he was riding to a stranger outside a grocery store in Alamo, Texas. That person, Catalina Aguilar, became suspicious that Rene had stolen the bicycle, and called the Alamo police. Officers Ruben DeLeon, Jr. (not related to the police chief), and Ruben Espinoza were dispatched to the scene. They questioned Rene about the bike, which Rene denied owning. As the officers approached the store, Rene attempted to flee. As Officer Espinoza attempted to detain Rene, they both fell to the ground. Rene was hand-cuffed and taken to the police station and questioned. While Espinoza and DeLeon, Jr., attempted to obtain Rene's name, another scuffle ensued, and Rene's front teeth were chipped. Espinoza and DeLeon Jr. maintained that Rene had lashed out at the officers, and was injured while they attempted to restrain him. Rene testified that he orally offended the officer and was assaulted by Espinoza in retaliation for his comments.

Rene's parents were summoned to the police station, and when they arrived, they noticed he had chipped teeth and several bruises. They demanded a meeting with Chief DeLeon and requested that the officers be disciplined. When they did finally meet with the chief, he allegedly told them their son had a big mouth and "had it coming." The Casases reported the incident to the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), which conducted its own investigation.

Although the FBI's investigation did not result in any specific finding of wrongdoing, the Casases alleged that Rene was subsequently harassed and arrested by the Alamo police. He was stopped by Officer Boreman while riding in a car with his uncle, his cousin, and a friend. After he refused to provide any information beyond his name, Boreman allegedly stepped on Rene's foot, brought him to the police station, and interrogated him in the presence of the chief. Rene was charged with possession of marihuana, a charge which was later dismissed. He was also charged with other offenses subsequent to his initial arrest, some of which were dismissed. He was charged and convicted of burglary of a habitation.

THE LAWSUIT

By their original and only petition, filed on February 18, 1988, appellees brought this action against the City and the police department, as well as Chief DeLeon, and officers Boreman ² and Espinoza, in their individual and official capacities. Appellees alleged false arrest, excessive force, malicious conspiracy, and violations of Rene's civil rights. In addition to a recitation of the April 20, 1986 arrest, the petition alleged: (1) another subsequent incident where Rene was arrested without cause, (2) an incident in which the police asked a third party if he would claim responsibility for injuries Rene sustained during the initial arrest, and (3) that Rene was charged with three offenses by the Alamo police, all of which were subsequently dismissed. The petition also generally alleged a "malicious conspiracy" by the City, the police department, its chief, and its officers.

There were no allegations regarding actions taken by the defendants against either Armando or Amelia Casas individually. There were significant delays in the prosecution of the suit after its commencement, such that it was dismissed twice and had to be reinstated upon motion of the plaintiffs. ³ Before trial commenced in this case, both sides agreed that they were satisfied with their pleadings and would not make any subsequent amendments.

The case was tried to a jury over the course of five weeks. At the close of its case-in-chief, the City moved for a directed verdict on all claims against it, which the trial court denied. Before the charge was submitted to the jury, the plaintiffs non-suited Espinoza and Chief DeLeon, individually, leaving the City as the only remaining defendant. The parties also stipulated that Chief DeLeon was a policymaker for the City, and that the attorney's fees sought by the plaintiffs were reasonable.

THE CHARGE AND THE VERDICT

The court posed four questions to the jury. The first question asked if Espinoza had violated the constitutional rights ⁴ of Rene, Amelia, and/or Armando Casas, thereby causing damages. The second asked whether Chief DeLeon had violated the rights of each plaintiff. Question three, predicated upon an affirmative finding to question one, asked whether it found by a preponderance of the evidence that Chief DeLeon, as a policymaker for the City of Alamo, authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of Espinoza, if any. And question four, which was only to be answered if the jury answered "yes" to questions two or three, asked the jury to calculate the amount of damages which would compensate each of the plaintiffs for their damages.

The jury answered "no" to all parts of question one, "yes" to all parts of question two, properly ignored question three, and calculated the damages under question four at $200,000 for Rene, and $100,000 each for Armando and Amelia Casas. The trial court added in prejudgment interest dating from October 20, 1986, and entered judgment awarding $467,510.56 to Rene, and $233,755.28 each to Armando and Amelia Casas, plus a total of $160,000 in reasonable and necessary attorney's fees.

POINTS ON APPEAL

The City presents twenty-five points of error, alleging numerous grounds for reversal. It attacks the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the jury's liability and damages findings, and contends that the trial court erred by denying its motion for instructed verdict, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, motion to disregard jury findings, and its motion for new trial. The City also contends that reversible error occurred when the trial court admitted certain evidence over objection, when it made inappropriate comments from the bench, and when it awarded pre-judgment interest to appellees.

Broadly speaking, points one through fifteen challenge the sufficiency of the pleadings to support recovery, the sufficiency of the evidence, and rulings made by the court in relation to the alleged insufficiency of the evidence (failure to grant directed verdict, failure to disregard jury findings, failure to grant new trial). Points sixteen through nineteen complain about the court's admitting evidence of irrelevant alleged acts of misconduct by Chief DeLeon and his officers. Points twenty through twenty-two argue that the trial court made inappropriate comments from the bench which prejudiced the City. Finally, points twenty-three through twenty-five challenge the inclusion and calculation of prejudgment interest in the judgment.

"SUFFICIENCY" POINTSTS

Points one through fifteen all challenge the sufficiency of the evidence or the pleadings to support the judgment against the City. We commence with points one through three, and eight through fifteen, because they all challenge the trial court's denial of its motion for instructed verdict, and its motion to disregard jury findings.

Before we address the points on the merits, however, we must consider whether they have been properly preserved. Appellees contend that the City has waived any alleged errors because the court's rulings on the motion for instructed verdict and the motion for directed verdict do not appear in a formal order or in the judgment itself.

We have previously held the overruling of a motion for an instructed verdict will be reviewed on appeal only if it was recited in a formal order or in the judgment. Soto v. Southern Life & Health Ins. Co., 776 S.W.2d 752, 754 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1989, no writ). Consequently, we, among other courts, have refused to consider such alleged error without a formal order or a recital in a judgment. Id.; see also Western Co. of N. Am. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 819 S.W.2d 952, 956 (Tex.App.--Austin 1991, no writ); Superior Trucks, Inc. v. Allen, 664 S.W.2d 136, 145 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Steed v. Bost, 602 S.W.2d 385, 387 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1980, no writ); Southwestern Materials Co. v. George Consol., Inc., 476 S.W.2d 454, 455 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

Although the denial does not appear in the judgment, the City did obtain a written denial of its motion for instructed verdict from the trial court. The transcript contains the handwritten ruling of the trial court. ⁵ We consider it clear and unequivocal, and...