Holmes v. Pomeroy
Decision Date | 07 May 2021 |
Docket Number | No. 19-1162,19-1162 |
Citation | 959 N.W.2d 387 |
Parties | Matthew HOLMES, Appellant, v. Miranda POMEROY, Appellee. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Matthew M. Sahag of Dickey, Campbell & Sahag Law Firm, PLC, Des Moines, for appellant.
J. Scott Bardole of Andersen & Associates, West Des Moines, for appellee.
In this case, we consider whether approximately twenty instances of the defendant's cell phone use while in a vehicle over an approximately three-year period is admissible to show a habit of driving while distracted under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.406. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the district court's determination that the proffered evidence of the defendant's cell phone use while in a vehicle is inadmissible as habit evidence. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
On June 8, 2015, Miranda Pomeroy (Pomeroy) was driving westbound on Cumming Avenue in Cumming, Iowa. At the same time, Matthew Holmes (Holmes) was riding his bicycle southbound on a bike trail heading toward Cumming Avenue. Holmes suffered injuries when he turned left onto Cumming Avenue and collided with Pomeroy's vehicle. On June 1, 2017, Holmes filed a petition and jury demand against Pomeroy alleging her negligence caused his injuries and damages.
Prior to trial, Holmes filed a motion in limine requesting exclusion of certain testimony by Dr. Andrea J. Silvers (Dr. Silvers), who arrived at the scene shortly after the collision and tended to Holmes. Dr. Silvers was expected to testify Holmes told her the accident was his fault. The district court determined Dr. Silvers could testify as to the statements. Accordingly, Dr. Silvers testified Holmes said either, "It was my fault," or "This was my fault."
Pomeroy also filed a motion in limine asking the district court to prevent Holmes from making any argument that she has a habit of driving while distracted. The district court ordered Holmes could not use evidence of Pomeroy's cell phone use while driving that occurred subsequent to the accident to prove a habit. During trial, the evidence of cell phone use while driving was admitted only for impeachment purposes.
There was no objection. On cross-examination, Holmes asked Deputy Ohlinger, "[S]omebody told you that there may be a suspicion that she was using her cell phone while driving?" Pomeroy objected to the question as hearsay. The court sustained the objection. In closing arguments, Holmes used a PowerPoint slideshow with the statement, "A witness said Miranda was texting while driving." Pomeroy objected to the statement as hearsay. The district court sustained the objection.
The jury returned its verdict for Pomeroy. Holmes subsequently filed a motion for new trial based on misconduct. During discovery, Holmes requested all text messages, photographs, and other data on Pomeroy's cell phone from both before and after the accident. Pomeroy provided him with data and text messages from after the accident but only some data from prior to the accident. She did not produce any text messages from the date of the accident. She testified she got a new cell phone after the accident but prior to the filing of the present action, and text messages did not transfer over to her new phone. The district court gave a spoliation instruction at the request of Holmes and over objection by Pomeroy. In closing arguments, Pomeroy argued, Holmes filed a motion for new trial on the basis of this statement. The district court denied the motion.
On appeal, Holmes argued the district court erred in (1) sustaining objections to hearsay evidence that had previously been admitted without objection; (2) admitting testimony he said the accident was his fault; (3) excluding evidence of the defendant's habit of using her cell phone while driving; and (4) denying his motion for new trial.
The court of appeals affirmed. Holmes applied for further review, and we granted his application. We have discretion to choose which issues we review when we take a case on further review. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.1103 ; Hills Bank & Tr. Co. v. Converse , 772 N.W.2d 764, 770 (Iowa 2009) ( ). Therefore, we only review whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the district court's determination that the proffered evidence of Pomeroy's cell phone use while driving did not constitute habit evidence under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.406. We let the court of appeals decision stand as to the other issues raised on appeal. See State v. Stewart , 858 N.W.2d 17, 19 (Iowa 2015).
We generally review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. State v. Buelow , 951 N.W.2d 879, 884 (Iowa 2020).
Holmes argues on appeal that the district court abused its discretion when it concluded that evidence of Pomeroy's cell phone use while driving is inadmissible as habit evidence.
We have defined habit evidence as "a regular practice of meeting a particular kind of situation with a specific type of conduct." State v. Don , 318 N.W.2d 801, 806 (Iowa 1982) (quoting McCormick's Handbook of the Law of Evidence § 195, at 462–63 (Edward W. Cleary ed., 2d ed. 1972) ). "Evidence of habit is admissible to show that a person is likely to have acted on a particular occasion in conformity with that habit." Id.
The district court determined that only acts occurring prior to the incident in question may be used to show habit. The district court reasoned that "[s]ubsequent incidents may only be proof of a recently developed habit and therefore irrelevant to past conduct." Because the proffered instances of Pomeroy's cell phone use while driving occurred after the collision, the district court refused to admit them as habit evidence at the trial. Holmes argues subsequent acts are relevant to show a habit existed at the time of the event at issue.
Authority exists for both positions. Some courts have held that conduct subsequent to the particular occasion is irrelevant as habit evidence. DeMatteo v. Simon , 112 N.M. 112, 812 P.2d 361, 363 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991) ( ); Gucciardi v. New Chopsticks House, Inc. , 133 A.D.3d 633, 634 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015) ( ; Jackson v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. , 179 Va. 642, 20 S.E.2d 489, 492 (1942) ().
Other courts take the position that evidence's relevance in proving a habit is not defeated due to its occurrence after the incident in question. United States v. Luttrell , 612 F.2d 396, 397 (8th Cir. 1980) (per curiam) ( ); Gasiorowski v. Hose , 182 Ariz. 376, 897 P.2d 678, 682 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994) ( ); People v. Memro , 38 Cal.3d 658, 214 Cal.Rptr. 832, 700 P.2d 446, 462, 466 (1985) (in bank), (determining evidence of law enforcements’ conduct after the defendant's interrogation might be relevant in showing law enforcement had a habit or custom of using coercive interrogation methods), overruled on other grounds by People v. Gaines , 46 Cal.4th 172, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 627, 205 P.3d 1074 (2009) ; Kita v. Borough of Lindenwold , 305 N.J.Super. 43, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Davis
...issues we review when we take a case on further review." In re D.M. , 965 N.W.2d 475, 480 n.2 (Iowa 2021) (quoting Holmes v. Pomeroy , 959 N.W.2d 387, 389 (Iowa 2021) ). We use our discretion to review the jury instruction on reasonable doubt and instruction to break a jury deadlock. Howeve......
-
In re Hutchinson
...issues we review when we take a case on further review." In re D.M. , 965 N.W.2d 475, 480 n.2 (Iowa 2021) (quoting Holmes v. Pomeroy , 959 N.W.2d 387, 389 (Iowa 2021) ).III. Analysis."In dissolution-of-marriage cases, marital property is to be divided equitably, considering the factors outl......
-
Vroegh v. Iowa Dep't of Corr.
...evidentiary rulings. We generally review claims of evidentiary errors for an abuse of the district court's discretion. Holmes v. Pomeroy , 959 N.W.2d 387, 389 (Iowa 2021).A.The State argues that the district court erred in refusing to permit the State to introduce evidence showing that the ......
-
Valdez v. W. Des Moines Cmty. Schs.
...erred. Nevertheless, we may uphold the court's exclusion of Exhibit 6 if it "could be held inadmissible on any theory." Holmes v. Pomeroy, 959 N.W.2d 387, 391 (Iowa 2021). The district court's reasoning and conclusion exclusion under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.403. Although neither the parties......