Davis v. Davis
| Decision Date | 28 June 1985 |
| Citation | 474 So.2d 654 |
| Parties | H. Leroy DAVIS v. Bishop E.D. DAVIS. 84-54. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Robert S. Edington, Mobile, for appellant.
Peter F. Burns of Morgan & Burns, Mobile, for appellee.
This is a fraud case that originated in the Mobile Circuit Court. After a trial on the merits, the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff/Appellee Bishop E.D. Davis and awarded him $87,500. Defendant/Appellant H. Leroy Davis appeals to this Court, alleging three errors in the trial below: 1) that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of a similar representation made by Defendant in another transaction; 2) that the trial court improperly sustained Plaintiff's hearsay objection to the testimony of one of Defendant's witnesses; and 3) that Defendant was denied due process because he was not served with copies of several pleadings and other documents.
We address in turn each allegation of error and include only those facts relevant and necessary to our discussion of each issue.
Defendant first argues that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing one of Plaintiff's witnesses to testify about a similar representation made to him by Defendant during a different transaction. Specifically, Defendant argues that this similar representation occurred in a transaction too removed in time from any representation he made to Plaintiff during their transaction to be of any probative value.
Indeed, our evidentiary rule of "similar representations," as set forth in C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 70.03(1) (3d ed. 1977), states:
"Once there is evidence that the representation to the plaintiff was false, the plaintiff may then offer evidence of similar representations to others about the same time for the purpose of bolstering the conclusion that the representation to him was false." (Emphasis added; footnotes omitted.)
In the instant case, Defendant first made fraudulent representations to Plaintiff in 1972. Plaintiff's witness testified that the Defendant made similar representations to him in a transaction that occurred in 1981 or 1982. Yet, in ruling that this witness's testimony was admissible, the trial judge stated:
We agree with the trial court's characterization of the instant conduct as a "continuing type of fraud." Defendant's first representation to Plaintiff occurred in 1972, but Defendant made other representations to Plaintiff over a period of several years in order to conceal and perpetuate his fraud. Indeed, Plaintiff did not discover the fraud until 1981. Moreover, "[w]hether or not the offer of evidence will be denied on the ground of remoteness is a question to be decided by the trial court in the exercise of sound discretion, and such ruling by trial court will not be revised on appeal unless it is plain that error was committed." Roan v. Smith, 272 Ala. 538, 541, 133 So.2d 224, 227 (1961). We find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's allowance of this witness's "similar representation" testimony.
Defendant bases his next allegation of error on the trial court's sustaining Plaintiff's hearsay objection to the testimony of one of Defendant's witnesses. Defendant argues that the testimony, though hearsay, was properly admissible by an exception to the hearsay rule.
The relevant portion of the record reads as follows "Q Will you tell the jury, please, what knowledge you have of the E.D. Davis matters specifically?
Assuming, without deciding, the correctness of Defendant's argument that this witness's testimony is admissible by an exception to the hearsay rule, Defendant has not preserved any error for us to review. Defendant made no offer of proof as to the substance or relevancy of the witness's testimony, and "[w]hen the question does not show on its face the answer that will be given, and that such would be relevant, there must be an offer of proof made for appeal purposes." C. Gamble, supra, at § 425.01(4). See, also, A.R.Civ.P. 43(c); Bessemer Executive Aviation, Inc. v. Barnett 469 So.2d 1283 (Ala.1985). In a case directly on point, this Court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carruth v. Hamm
...defects cannot be raised for the first time in a motion for new trial if they were previously known to the movant); Davis v. Davis, 474 So.2d 654, 656 (Ala. 1985) (same); Saunders v. State, 10 So.3d 53, 112 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (a new trial is not proper relief for a challenge to the method ......
-
Bracewell v. State
...attention must be called to the proposed answer and it must be shown that such answer was relevant and admissible. Davis v. Davis, 474 So.2d 654, 656 (Ala.1985); McElroy at § As stated earlier, the issue of flight was not disputed at trial. In fact, it is undisputed that some time after the......
-
In re Cornner
...of a similar fraud claim filed against the defendant by another person two years before the fraud at issue in that case. In Davis v. Davis, 474 So.2d 654 (Ala.1985), the court upheld the admission by the trial court of evidence of a similar misrepresentation made by the defendant to a third......
-
Shoals Ford, Inc. v. McKinney
...inference that Shoals Ford was engaging in a pattern or practice of fraud at the time of the McKinney transaction. See Davis v. Davis, 474 So.2d 654 (Ala.1985). We also note that the trial court gave a limiting instruction to the jury both immediately following the testimony of these three ......