Rivers v. K-Mart Corp.
Decision Date | 07 November 2014 |
Docket Number | No. A14A0752.,A14A0752. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Parties | RIVERS v. K–MART CORPORATION. |
Gillis & Creasy, James Lewis–Kent Creasy III, for Appellant.
Strawinski & Stout, James S. Strawinski, Daniel George Cheek, Atlanta, for Appellee.
In an action for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, Richard Rivers appeals from the denial of his motion in limine to exclude evidence of his prior arrests and convictions.1 He contends that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that, with respect to only the damages portion of his claims, the evidence of Rivers's experience with the criminal justice system was not barred by OCGA § 24–4–403. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
This is the second appearance of this case. In the earlier appeal, Rivers v. K–Mart Corp.,2 (Rivers I ) the Court provided the following background, which is relevant here:
[T]he record shows that in November 2008, Rivers was arrested and prosecuted for allegedly shoplifting at a K–Mart store in Jonesboro, Georgia. The charges against him were ultimately dismissed, and he instituted the present action against K–Mart for malicious prosecution. During discovery, Rivers disclosed his extensive criminal record, including several convictions for various offenses and numerous arrests which did not result in convictions. Rivers sought to exclude the evidence as prejudicial and irrelevant to the issues being tried, and K–Mart opposed the motion, arguing that the evidence was relevant on the issue of damages, specifically Rivers'[s] claim that he suffered emotional distress and anxiety as a result of his arrest and prosecution, and for purposes of impeachment. The trial court agreed with K–Mart and denied the motion, finding that it was relevant for the jury to consider the evidence of Rivers'[s] “exposure to the criminal justice system and its effect on him,” in evaluating Rivers'[s] claims for damages based on his emotional distress and anxiety. The trial court, however, did not make any findings concerning whether there was a danger that introduction of this evidence might prejudice Rivers'[s] claim or confuse or mislead the jury.3
On appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court's ruling as to relevancy but remanded the case for consideration of the issue of undue prejudice and other factors in OCGA § 24–4–403.4
On remand, the trial court analyzed the challenged evidence under OCGA § 24–4–403 and deemed it admissible. The trial court acknowledged “that the presentation of [Rivers's] extensive criminal history might be misconstrued by a jury,” so the court bifurcated the trial and allowed the challenged evidence in the damages portion of the trial only. Rivers now appeals.
2. Rivers also challenges the trial court's ruling, in a footnote, that the evidence of his criminal record could be admissible at trial if “the door is opened by Defendant to allow its admissibility.” Defendant K–Mart, as the proponent of the evidence, would not be in a position to “open the door” to the evidence, so we assume the use of the word “Defendant” was a misnomer referring to Rivers. Beyond that, the trial court's prospective statement in a footnote that Rivers's future trial conduct could somehow open the door to admissibility at trial does not present a reviewable ruling at this time.13
Judgment affirmed.
1 The ruling is directly appealable because it follows this Court's remand...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Goldstein, Garber & Salama, LLC v. J.B.
...patient with fewer than two people in attendance. See OCGA § 24–6–621. We discern no abuse of discretion. See Rivers v. K–Mart Corp., 329 Ga.App. 495, 496(1), 765 S.E.2d 671 (2014) ("As a general rule, admission of evidence is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court,......
-
Doherty v. Brown
...judgment concerning the relative weighing of probative value and unfair effect.(Footnote omitted.) Rivers v. K – Mart Corp ., 329 Ga.App. 495, 497 (1), 765 S.E.2d 671 (2014) (in bifurcated trial, trial court accounted for risk of improper influence on jury by excluding evidence of criminal ......
-
Goldstein, Garber & Salama, LLC v. J. B.
...patient with fewer than two people in attendance. See OCGA § 24-6-621. We discern no abuse of discretion. See Rivers v. K-Mart Corp., 329 Ga. App. 495, 496 (1) (765 SE2d 671) (2014) ("As a general rule, admission of evidence is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court......
-
Cannon v. Barnes
...[trial] court's on-the-spot judgment concerning the relative weighing of probative value and unfair effect. Rivers v. K-Mart Corp. , 329 Ga. App. 495, 497 (1), 765 S.E.2d 671 (2014) (citation and punctuation omitted). Cannon has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion by r......