Munn v. Algee
| Citation | 924 F.2d 568 |
| Decision Date | 28 February 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-1173,90-1173 |
| Parties | 32 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 439 Ray James MUNN, Individually, and Ray James Munn, Administrator of the Estate of Elaine Munn, Deceased, on Behalf of the Heirs at Law and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Elaine Munn, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Trudy E. ALGEE, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Phil Zerilla, Jr., Martin & Zerilla, Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Gary K. Smith, Robert H. Harper, Shuttleworth, Smith & Webb, Memphis, Tenn., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.
Before RUBIN, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Ray James Munn asserts that his and his deceased wife's adherence to the Jehovah's Witnesses faith was used improperly to impair his ability to recover compensation for their injuries. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
On Christmas morning 1986, vehicles driven by Munn and defendant Trudy Algee collided in Tunica County, Mississippi. Elaine Munn, Munn's wife and a passenger in his car, was transported to the Regional Medical Center in Memphis, Tennessee, arriving approximately three hours after the accident. Doctors identified a variety of injuries, including multiple rib and pelvic fractures, a lacerated chest artery, and a retroperitoneal hematoma.
Upon arrival at the hospital, Mrs. Munn informed doctors that she was a Jehovah's Witness and thus would not accept blood transfusions. Responding to her deteriorating condition, doctors unsuccessfully sought Munn's permission later in the day to perform a blood transfusion on his wife. Munn also refused to allow doctors to transfuse Mrs. Munn's own blood back into her.
Mrs. Munn died on the operating table from a loss of blood. Elaine and Ray James Munn incurred medical expenses in the amounts of $10,411.67 and $241.44, respectively.
Munn brought suit against Algee in three separate capacities: (1) individually for his own injuries; (2) as administrator of his deceased spouse's estate; and (3) on behalf of his children, who, along with Mr. Munn, are the wrongful death beneficiaries under the Mississippi wrongful death statute, Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 11-7-13 (Supp.1990). The district court granted Algee's motion for partial summary judgment, thereby precluding Munn from establishing what his wife's damages would have been had she consented to the blood transfusions and survived. The court granted a directed verdict in favor of plaintiffs on the question of liability.
After a trial, the jury awarded Munn $241.44 for his own medical expenses. It also returned a verdict for Munn in the amount of $20,411.67 to compensate Mrs. Munn's estate for her medical bills ($10,411.67) and her pain and suffering ($10,000.00). With respect to the wrongful death claim, the jury concluded that Mrs. Munn would not have died had she accepted blood transfusions and thus awarded the wrongful death beneficiaries no damages.
Munn moved for a new trial, asserting that the court erred in (1) admitting evidence of Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs; (2) allowing Algee to invoke the avoidable consequences doctrine; (3) refusing to allow Munn to show what his wife's damages would have been had she accepted blood and lived; (4) refusing to apply the eggshell skull doctrine; (5) entering judgment on allegedly inconsistent answers to jury interrogatories; and (6) its instructions to the jury. Munn also argued that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence and that the damage award was inadequate. The court denied the motion for new trial, 730 F.Supp. 21, and Munn now appeals. 1
Over Munn's objection, the district court allowed Algee's counsel to question him about many aspects of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith, including, inter alia, the following beliefs and practices: (1) Christ's physical return to earth in 1914; (2) the eternal damnation of all those not adhering to the faith; (3) the non-existence of hell; (4) the non-existence of souls; (5) refusal to "do service to their country"; and (6) refusal to salute the flag. Algee's counsel further questioned Munn about his and his wife's adherence vel non to the faith's prohibition on premarital cohabitation.
The admission of this evidence raises two questions: (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting Munn's testimony, see Jon-T Chems., Inc. v. Freeport Chem. Co., 704 F.2d 1412, 1417 (5th Cir.1983); and (2) assuming the court abused its discretion, whether this error affected any substantial right of Munn's, see Fed.R.Evid. 103(a); LeBoeuf v. K-Mart Corp., 888 F.2d 330, 333 (5th Cir.1989). 2
Evidence is relevant (and thus potentially admissible) if it tends "to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Fed.R.Evid. 401. For Munn's testimony to be relevant, it is essential to identify a "fact of consequence" whose existence is made more or less probable thereby. Because we are unable to discern a fact of consequence of which this testimony is probative, we hold that the court erred in allowing the questions and that the error constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Algee asserts that the fact of consequence of which this testimony is probative is the sincerity of the Munns' adherence to their faith. 3 One might plausibly argue that sincerity is a fact of consequence in that a decision sincerely motivated by a religious belief is more reasonable 4 than an otherwise inexplicable action. However, only the discussion of the Munns' adherence to the prohibition on premarital cohabitation reflects upon their sincerity. Simply inquiring otherwise into whether the Jehovah's Witnesses faith incorporates certain beliefs does not reveal anything about whether the Munns sincerely adhered to them.
Nor were these questions directly probative of the reasonableness of Mrs. Munn's decision to refuse blood. Algee fails to demonstrate how Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs unrelated to blood transfusions reveal the reasonableness of her adherence to one particular article of the faith. 5
Algee further asserts that, in any event, she was entitled to counter Munn's direct testimony about his wife's religious beliefs. However, Fed.R.Evid. 611(b) limits the scope of cross-examination to "the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness."
The bulk of Munn's testimony on cross-examination did not concern the sincerity of his and his wife's beliefs. As noted above, simply listing Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs says nothing about the sincerity of the Munns' adherence thereto. Accordingly, this testimony was not within "the subject matter of the direct examination." Moreover, Munn's direct testimony did not cover any beliefs other than the prohibition on blood transfusions. Accordingly, because Munn's testimony did not tend to prove or disprove any (permissible) material fact and thus was irrelevant, its admission was error amounting to an abuse of discretion. 6
However, simply because the court abused its discretion in admitting his testimony does not entitle Munn to relief. Rule 103(a) indicates that courts of appeals should not reverse on the basis of erroneous evidentiary rulings unless a party's "substantial right" is affected.
This question is not susceptible to mechanical analysis. "Rule 103 is silent as to what factors a court must consider in determining whether substantial rights have been affected, indicating that the court must proceed on a case to case basis rather than apply a mechanical rule." 1 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence p 103 at 103-6 (1990). However, we have stated repeatedly that " '[a]n error is harmless if the court is sure, after reviewing the entire record, that the error did not influence the jury or had but a very slight effect on its verdict.' " Pregeant v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 762 F.2d 1245, 1249 (5th Cir.1985) (quoting United States v. Underwood, 588 F.2d 1073, 1076 (5th Cir.1979)).
After reviewing the record, we conclude--although it is a close question--that the admission of Munn's testimony did not adversely influence the jury. Munn failed to articulate any substantial right affected by this evidence's admission, 7 and no prejudice is reflected in the jury's verdict.
First, Munn cannot plausibly argue that the amount of damages for pain and suffering awarded to Elaine Munn's estate demonstrates prejudice. For approximately eight hours of pain and suffering, the jury awarded $10,000.00, an amount not so small as to arouse suspicion as to the jury's motives.
Second, the jury's failure to award Munn any damages for his own pain and suffering most likely reflects the relatively minor nature of his injuries. See Pregeant, 762 F.2d at 1249 (). He incurred only $241.44 in medical expenses and by his own admission suffered only "bruises and contusions."
The jury's failure to award any wrongful death damages is the most plausible expression of any prejudice caused by the erroneous admission of this evidence. However, the jury most likely refused to compensate the wrongful death beneficiaries because it believed that Mrs. Munn would have lived had she taken blood transfusions. A number of doctors testified as to whether blood transfusions would have saved Mrs. Munn's life, 8 and although their testimony was conflicting, the evidence was such that in deciding the cause of Mrs. Munn's death, there is no indication that the jury was using her refusal to take blood as a pretext for expressing its possible distaste for Jehovah's Witnesses. See id.
Thus ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. Ashland Chemical, Inc.
...should not reverse on the basis of erroneous evidentiary rulings unless a party's "substantial right" is affected. Munn v. Algee, 924 F.2d 568, 573 (5th Cir.1991). Having determined that Dr. Jenkins' testimony as to the cause of Moore's injury was improperly excluded, we must address whethe......
-
Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc.
...When the circuit court's ruling hinges on its view of the law, however, its decision is subject to de novo review. See Munn v. Algee, 924 F.2d 568, 575 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 900, 112 S.Ct. 277, 116 L.Ed.2d 229 (1991).12 See Liljeberg, supra (suggesting that even on the egregiou......
-
Alabama & Coushatta Tribes v. BIG SANDY SCHOOL D.
...to Smith for guidance regarding the "interplay between the First Amendment and the enforcement of criminal laws"); Munn v. Algee, 924 F.2d 568, 574 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 277, 116 L.Ed.2d 229 (1991) (without determining the applicable standard (rational basis or c......
-
U.S. v. O'Keefe, 96-31181
...judge. See United States v. Boyd, 55 F.3d 239, 242 (7th Cir.1995). Questions of law, however, are reviewed de novo. Munn v. Algee, 924 F.2d 568, 575 (5th Cir.1991). On mixed questions of law and fact, we review the underlying facts on an abuse of discretion standard, but the conclusions to ......
-
Religious Healing in the Courts: the Liberties and Liabilities of Patients, Parents, and Healers
...v. Wyche, 53 So. 786, 789 (Ala. 1910). 135. Munn v. Southern Health Plan, Inc., 719 F. Supp. 525, 527 (N.D. Miss. 1989), aff'd a, 924 F.2d 568 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 277 (1991). 136. Id. 137. Id. at 526-27. 138. Lange v. Hoyt, 159 A. 575, 577-78 (Conn. 1932). 139. Id. at 578. ......
-
Contraceptive Coverage Falls, No More: Using Rfra to Limit the Scope of Religious Challenges to the Aca's Contraceptive Mandate
...to allow a hospital to give the child in question a blood transfusion, despite the parents' religious objections), with Munn v. Algee, 924 F.2d 568 (5th Cir. 1991) (a person has the right to refuse lifesaving blood transfusions for religious reasons, and religious beliefs may only be questi......
-
Sequencing in Damages.
...been guilty of negligent conduct.... He is required to exercise no more than reasonable judgment or fortitude...."). (108.) Munn v. Algee, 924 F.2d 568, 574-75 (5th Cir. 1991) ("We conclude that in an appropriate case, application of the case-by-case approach to religiously motivated refusa......
-
The Costs of Changing Our Minds
...L.J. 1466 (1978). 100. For a detailed discussion of whether the case-by-case approach violates the First Amendment, see Munn v. Algee, 924 F.2d 568 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 900 (1991) (recognizing that weighing a plaintiff's religious objections could result in impermissible ......