Robinson v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 11 August 2015
• Docket Number: No. 20130463.,20130463.
• Citation: 356 P.3d 1230,2015 UT 69
• Parties: Robby D. ROBINSON and Lisa Robinson, individually and as personal representatives for the heirs of the Estate of Bradford Robinson, Appellees, v. Paul Ray TAYLOR, M.D. et al., Appellant.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

356 P.3d 1230

2015 UT 69

Robby D. ROBINSON and Lisa Robinson, individually and as personal representatives for the heirs of the Estate of Bradford Robinson, Appellees

v.Paul Ray TAYLOR, M.D. et al., Appellant.

No. 20130463.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Aug. 11, 2015.

James R. Hasenyager, Peter W. Summerill, Ogden, Matthew J. Morrison, Andrew Tuegel, Waco, TX, Donald J. Winder, John W. Holt, Salt Lake City, for appellees.

Michael D. Zimmerman, Troy L. Booher, Julie J. Nelson, Noella A. Sudbury, George R. Naegle, Zachary E. Peterson, Cortney Kochevar, Salt Lake City, for appellant.

Merrill F. Nelson, Alexander Dushku, Tiffany Smith, Salt Lake City, for amicus curiae American Medical Association, Utah Hospital Association, Utah Medical Association.

Paul M. Simmons, Ryan M. Springer, Salt Lake City, for amicus curiae Utah Association for Justice.

Sean D. Reyes, Att'y Gen., Bridget K. Romano, Solicitor Gen., Salt Lake City, for the State of Utah.

Justice PARRISH authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice DURRANT, Justice DURHAM, and Judge TOOMEY joined. Associate Chief Justice LEE filed a dissenting opinion. Due to his retirement, Justice NEHRING, did not participate herein; Court of Appeals Judge KATE A. TOOMEY sat. Justice DENO G. HIMONAS became a member of the Court on February 13, 2015, after oral argument in this matter, and accordingly did not participate.

Justice PARRISH, opinion of the Court:

INTRODUCTION

¶ 1 Robby and Lisa Robinson brought this medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Paul Taylor for the wrongful death of their deceased father, Brad Robinson. After the jury found that Dr. Taylor negligently caused Mr. Robinson's death, Dr. Taylor appealed, challenging the trial court's decision to admit into evidence Dr. Taylor's felony drug conviction.¹ We agree with Dr. Taylor and hold that evidence of Dr. Taylor's prior criminal conviction was inadmissible under rules 608 and 609 of the Utah Rules of Evidence. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new jury trial.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 Dr. Taylor began treating Mr. Robinson in 2003 for chronic back pain and degenerative disc disease. Over the next three years, Dr. Taylor prescribed various pain medications to treat Mr. Robinson's pain, including methadone, Lortab, and Demerol. Mr. Robinson developed a drug tolerance that required successively larger doses of medication to ameliorate his pain.

¶ 3 During Mr. Robinson's last visit to Dr. Taylor on May 26, 2006, Dr. Taylor issued a written prescription to Mr. Robinson for a daily dosage of 140 milligrams of methadone. Two weeks later, Mr. Robinson was found dead at his home. The medical examiner determined that the cause of death was “acute methadone toxicity.” The exact date of Mr. Robinson's death could not be determined, but evidence and medical testimony suggest he died on June 1 or 2, roughly a week after his last visit to Dr. Taylor. The Robinsons brought this suit against Dr. Taylor for wrongful death caused by medical malpractice.

¶ 4 During his deposition, Dr. Taylor testified that he had given Mr. Robinson oral dosing instructions for the methadone that differed from those reflected in the written prescription. Dr. Taylor argued that Mr. Robinson was at fault for his death because he failed to follow these oral instructions.

¶ 5 After Mr. Robinson's death, but prior to trial, Dr. Taylor was charged under federal law for illegally distributing a controlled substance. This charge was unrelated to Mr. Robinson's death. It arose when an individual requested a prescription for pain medication to help with a sport-related injury. Dr. Taylor met the individual in a parking lot on more than one occasion to give him prescriptions in exchange for cash. Dr. Taylor was charged with two federal felony drug counts for these acts. He subsequently pled guilty to one felony drug charge and was sentenced to prison. Due to his prison sentence, Dr. Taylor was unable to attend trial, and in lieu of direct examination, a previously recorded deposition was read to the jury.

¶ 6 During trial, the Robinsons sought to introduce evidence of Dr. Taylor's felony conviction in order to impeach his deposition testimony as to his alleged oral dosing instructions. Dr. Taylor filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of the conviction. The trial court denied the motion, and Dr. Taylor's deposition describing the events surrounding his felony conviction was read into the record.

¶ 7 The jury found that Dr. Taylor breached the standard of care and that this breach was the proximate cause of Mr. Robinson's death. The jury awarded the Robinsons over $3 million in general damages and $300,000 in punitive damages. Dr. Taylor appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code section 78A–3–102(3)(j).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 8 “[W]e grant a trial court broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence and will disturb its ruling only for abuse of discretion.” Daines v. Vincent, 2008 UT 51, ¶ 21, 190 P.3d 1269. Our review of the trial court's exercise of its discretion includes ensuring “that no mistakes of law affected a lower court's use of its discretion.” State v. Barrett, 2005 UT 88, ¶ 17, 127 P.3d 682.

ANALYSIS

I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ADMITTING EVIDENCE OF DR. TAYLOR'S FELONY CONVICTION

¶ 9 Dr. Taylor argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted his felony conviction for impeachment purposes.

Dr. Taylor contends that his conviction was not admissible because his credibility was not at issue and because the prejudicial effect of the admission substantially outweighed its probative value. We agree and hold that the trial court erred when it admitted Dr. Taylor's criminal conviction.

¶ 10 “When interpreting an evidentiary rule, we apply principles of statutory construction.... Thus, we first look to the plain language of the rule.” State v. Mead, 2001 UT 58, ¶ 44, 27 P.3d 1115 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). We may also rely on interpretations of similar federal rules by federal courts to assist our own interpretation. See id. ¶ 45. In this case, the trial court admitted evidence of Dr. Taylor's felony conviction under rules 608(b), 609(a)(1), and 609(a)(2) of the Utah Rules of Evidence. We address each in turn.

A. Rule 608(b)

¶ 11 Rule 608(b) governs evidence relating to a witness' character for truthfulness. The trial court admitted evidence of Dr. Robinson's felony conviction, reasoning that “writing a prescription under the false pretense of a doctor-patient relationship is probative of his character for truthfulness.” But Dr. Taylor contends that rule 608 does not apply because it only governs admission of impeachment evidence for those acts that have not resulted in the conviction of a crime. We agree and hold that rule 608(b) permits impeachment only by specific acts that did not result in a criminal conviction, while rule 609 governs evidence relating to impeachment by a criminal conviction.

¶ 12 Whether conduct resulting in a criminal conviction may be admitted under rule 608(b) is an issue of first impression for this court. We recognize that the rules are not free from ambiguity on this matter, but the structure of our rules of evidence drives our conclusion. We begin with a discussion of the general prohibition against the admission of specific instances of conduct to prove character.²

¶ 13 As a general matter, the Utah Rules of Evidence prohibit the admission of “[e]vidence of a person's character or character trait” in order “to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in conformity with [that] character or trait.” Utah R. Evid. 404(a)(1). This prohibition includes evidence of specific instances of conduct. See id. 405(b) (articulating when specific instances of conduct may be used).

¶ 14 Rules 608 and 609 are both exceptions to rule 404 and apply when specific instances of a witness' conduct may bear on the witness' character for truthfulness.

¶ 15 Rule 608(b) provides,

Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness's conduct in order to attack or support the witness's character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of ... the witness.

Accordingly, rule 608 allows specific instances of conduct to be inquired into on cross-examination if they are probative of a witness' character for truthfulness.

¶ 16 Rule 608 works in coordination with rule 609, which applies when “attacking a witness's character for truthfulness by evidence of a criminal conviction.” Id. 609(a). Under both rules, specific instances of conduct are admissible for the purposes of attacking credibility. Conduct not resulting in a conviction may be inquired into on cross-examination under rule 608, while rule 609 allows evidence of conduct that has resulted in a conviction. These rules are mutually exclusive: When specific instances of conduct are the subject of a conviction, they are governed exclusively by rule 609. And if the specific acts do not involve a conviction, they are governed by rule 608. Cf. 28 Charles Alan Wright & Victor J. Gold, Federal Practice and Procedure § 6133 (2d ed.2012) (“[C]riminal acts that have not been made the subject of a prosecution and conviction are controlled by Rule 608(b), not Rule 609.”).

¶ 17 The opening phrase of rule 608(b) makes this explicit. The rule begins with the phrase “[e]xcept for a criminal conviction under Rule 609.” This language specifically excludes rule 608's application to specific instances of conduct that result in a criminal conviction.³ SeeWright & Gold,supra, § 6117 (“[T]he first sentence of subdivision (b) specifically states that the admission of [conviction] evidence is determined under Rule 609, not Rule 608.”). This construction of rule 608(b)'s introductory phrase is supported by the committee note to the federal rule, which...