Sims v. Pappas

• Citation: 73 N.E.3d 700
• Decision Date: 11 May 2017
• Docket Number: No. 45S03-1701-CT-26,45S03-1701-CT-26
• Parties: Danny SIMS, Appellant (Respondent below), v. Andrew PAPPAS and Melissa Pappas, Appellees (Petitioners below).
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

73 N.E.3d 700

Danny SIMS, Appellant (Respondent below),

v.Andrew PAPPAS and Melissa Pappas, Appellees (Petitioners below).

No. 45S03-1701-CT-26

Supreme Court of Indiana.

May 11, 2017

Attorneys for Appellant: Thomas E. Rosta, Tammy J. Meyer, Metzger Rosta, LLP, Noblesville, Indiana.

Attorney for Amicus Curiae Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana: Donald B. Kite, Sr., Wuertz Law Office, LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Attorneys for Appellees: Adam J. Sedia, Michael E. Polen, Jr., Rubino, Ruman, Crosmer & Polen Dyer, Indiana.

Attorney for Amicus Curiae Indiana Trial Lawyers Association: Richard A. Cook, Yosha Cook & Tisch, Indianapolis, Indiana.

On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 45A03-1509-CT-1424

Rucker, Justice.

In this personal injury case arising out of an automobile collision we explore among other things whether and under what circumstances a drunk driver's prior alcohol-related driving convictions can be introduced into evidence.

Facts and Procedural History¹

On May 17, 2013, Andrew Pappas was driving to work in Crown Point, Indiana, when his car collided head-on with a car driven by Danny Sims. In consequence Pappas sustained serious injuries which we discuss later in this opinion. At this point, suffice it to say Sims was driving home from a bar where he had become intoxicated after drinking several alcoholic beverages. Sims' blood alcohol content was .18%, which was over twice the legal limit of .08%.² Sims was arrested and ultimately pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a class C misdemeanor.

Pappas filed a complaint against Sims on June 13, 2013. The complaint asserted theories of negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and willful and wanton misconduct. Pappas' wife Melissa joined the complaint on a loss of consortium claim.³

During pre-trial discovery, and responding to requests for admissions, Sims admitted "that at the time of the crash, [he was] operating [his] vehicle while intoxicated." Appellant's App. at 43. When asked to admit or deny that "in 1996, you failed a chemical test and as a result entered in to a Stipulated Plea Agreement wherein you plead guilty to Reckless Driving," and "in 1983, your driver's license was suspended for Operating While Intoxicated and Leaving the Scene of the Accident-Injury/Death/Entrapment," Sims objected on grounds of relevance but noted, "[w]ithout waving said objection, Defendant responds: Admit." Appellant's App. at 45. Also, Sims filed a pre-trial motion in limine seeking to exclude various items of evidence.⁴ The trial court granted the motion in part, denied it in part, and withheld ruling until trial in part, including on those portions of the motion seeking to exclude evidence that "Sims may have been involved in prior or subsequent automobile accidents"; evidence of "Sims's driving record"; and "[e]vidence of Defendant's financial status."See Appellant's App. at 14-16.

A jury trial began June 29, 2015. In his opening statement, Sims admitted that he was "at fault" for the collision and that he was intoxicated at the time. Tr. at 47. During his case-in-chief Pappas moved to introduce into evidence Sims' Bureau of Motor Vehicles driving record through the testimony of the investigating police officer. Sims objected arguing among other things the document was "more prejudicial than probative." Tr. at 98. After entertaining extended arguments on both sides, and not specifically responding to Sims' prejudice/probative contention, the trial court overruled the objection on grounds that Sims had admitted the violation contained in the BMV record in response to the requests for admissions.

At the close of trial the jury returned a verdict for Pappas in the amount $1,444,000.00 for compensatory damages and returned a verdict for his wife Melissa in the amount of $373,500.00 for her loss of consortium claim. The jury also awarded Pappas punitive damages in the amount of $182,500.00 for a total award of two million dollars. Sims filed a written "Motion Objecting to Entry of Judgment on the Jury's Verdict," contending: (1) the evidence regarding his prior convictions was improperly admitted; (2) the award of punitive damages is excessive and constitutes a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) the verdict is unsupported by the evidence and is excessive. App. at 21. After taking the matter under advisement the trial court treated the objection as a Motion To Correct Error. It then denied the motion and entered judgment on the jury's verdict.

Sims appealed raising the following restated claims: (1) the trial court improperly admitted evidence of Sims' prior criminal convictions; (2) the jury's award of compensatory damages is excessive and unsupported by the evidence; and (3) the jury's award of punitive damages is excessive and unsupported by the evidence.

In a divided opinion the Court of Appeals found the first claim dispositive, reversed the trial court's judgment, and remanded this cause for retrial. In so doing the court concluded Sims' prior alcohol-related convictions in 1983 and 1996 "neither proved nor disproved any facts that were central to the main questions the jury decided—a compensatory damages and loss of consortium." Sims v. Pappas , 61 N.E.3d 1285, 1286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Having previously granted transfer we now affirm the judgment of the trial court. Additional facts are set forth below.

Discussion

This Court generally reviews "a trial court's ruling on a motion to correct error for an abuse of discretion." Santelli v. Rahmatullah , 993 N.E.2d 167, 173 (Ind. 2013). Further, a trial court is afforded broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence. Turner v. State , 953 N.E.2d 1039, 1045 (Ind. 2011). We will disturb the trial court's ruling only where the challenger shows the trial court has abused that discretion. Id. "An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it." Id.

I. Relevance of Prior Alcohol-Related Driving Offenses

Sims contends "evidence of [his] prior criminal convictions was improperly admitted because the danger of unfair prejudice of 17 and 30 year old convictions outweighs their probative value." Appellant's Br. at 5. Sims invokes Indiana Evidence Rule 403 in support of his contention. The Rule provides: "The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Ind. R. Evid. 403. In turn, "[e]vidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Ind. R. Evid. 401.

We begin by observing that although citing Rule 403, Sims does not concede that evidence of his prior convictions were relevant for any purpose at all. Indeed at oral argument when asked whether his position was that the evidence was not relevant or whether it was relevant but should not have been admitted because of unfair prejudice, Sims was equivocal. See Oral Argument at 12:28-13:19 (stating, "our position is both"); see also Corrected Appellant's Br. in Response to Pet. to Trans. at 9 n.6 ("Sims does not concede that evidence of his prior convictions was relevant and admissible as to punitive damages."). In any event, we agree with our Court of Appeals colleagues that evidence of Sims' prior convictions was "not relevant" with respect to "compensatory damages and loss of consortium." Sims , 61 N.E.3d at 1286. But in addition to seeking compensatory damages and damages for loss of consortium, Sims also sought punitive damages. In our view the question thus presented is whether evidence of Sims' prior convictions was relevant on this narrow point.⁵

"The central purpose of punitive damages is to punish the wrongdoer and to deter him from future misconduct...." Crabtree ex rel. Kemp v. Estate of Crabtree , 837 N.E.2d 135, 139 (Ind. 2005). To come within the embrace of a punitive damages claim the defendant must have "subjected other persons to probable injury, with an awareness of such impending danger and with heedless indifference of the consequences." Yost v. Wabash Coll. , 3 N.E.3d 509, 523 (Ind. 2014) (quotation omitted). The tortious conduct must be marked by malice, fraud, gross negligence, or oppressiveness not resulting from "mistake of law or fact, honest error of judgment, overzealousness, mere negligence or other such noniniquitous human failing." Id. at 524.

In Rule 401 terms the question at this juncture is whether evidence of Sims' prior alcohol related driving offenses had any tendency to make a fact—for example, gross negligence—more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and whether gross negligence for example is of consequence in determining the action. See Ind. R. Evid. 401. Gross negligence is defined as "[a] conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of ... the consequences to another party." N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Sharp , 790 N.E.2d 462, 465 (Ind. 2003) (alteration in original) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1057 (7th ed. 1999)).

As the Court of Appeals has previously observed evidence of similar acts may be admissible "because of the light which it throws on the state of mind of a person, as for example, his knowledge, motive or intent." Lindley v. Oppegaard , 150 Ind.App. 209, 275 N.E.2d 825, 827 (1971). The Court of Appeals has also held "evidence of [the tortfeasor's] four previous DUI convictions was clearly relevant to his state of mind at the time of the accident and whether his actions were willful and wanton justifying the imposition of punitive damages." Davidson v. Bailey , 826 N.E.2d 80, 86 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). We agree with these precedents and conclude that evidence of Sims' two prior...