Danny Sims v. Andrew Pappas and Melissa Pappas
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 368
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On May 17, 2013, Danny Sims drove intoxicated (BAC .18), admitted fault, and pled guilty to OWI after a head-on collision that severely injured Andrew Pappas; Pappas and his wife sued for compensatory and punitive damages.
- At trial the court admitted Sims’ two prior alcohol-related convictions (1983 OWI and 1996 reckless driving) over defense objection; Sims’ counsel objected to their admission as overly remote and prejudicial.
- The jury returned a verdict awarding mostly compensatory damages to the Pappases and punitive damages to Pappas; compensatory awards comprised over 90% of the total.
- Sims moved post-trial to correct error arguing improper admission of the decades-old convictions under Evidence Rules 403 and 609(b); the trial court denied the motion and entered judgment.
- The appellate majority reversed, holding the prior convictions were more prejudicial than probative on the dominant compensatory- damages issues and that their admission was not harmless; a dissent would have affirmed, viewing the convictions as relevant to punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether decades-old DUI/reckless-driving convictions were admissible | Prior convictions probative of reprehensibility and state of mind for punitive damages; prejudice manageable | Convictions were remote, not probative of state of mind for compensatory damages, and unfairly prejudicial under Rules 403 and 609(b) | Reversed: admission was an abuse of discretion because prejudicial effect outweighed probative value for the compensatory-damage issues; error not harmless |
| Whether Rule 609(b)’s 10-year limit applies when convictions are used for state-of-mind/reprehensibility rather than impeachment | (Plaintiff did not assert 609(b) limited use; argued evidence admissible for punitive purposes) | Sims urged applying 609(b) temporal limit analogously to state-of-mind use | Court refused to extend 609(b) to non-impeachment uses but noted remoteness may still bar evidence under Rule 403 |
| Whether improper admission was harmless given other evidence (Sims’ admission of intoxication/fault) | Admission was proper and any error harmless given overwhelming evidence of intoxication and fault | Admission likely led jury to punish Sims for past conduct; counsel argued plea bargains showed light punishment | Not harmless: possibility jury doubled punished defendant; reversal required |
| Standard of review for evidentiary admission | N/A (applies to both sides) | Trial court has broad discretion; reversal only for manifest abuse affecting substantial rights | Court applied abuse-of-discretion standard and found reversible error under Rule 403 |
Key Cases Cited
- Backer v. State, 686 N.E.2d 791 (Ind. 1997) (trial-court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Davidson v. Bailey, 826 N.E.2d 80 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (prior DUI convictions admissible to show state of mind and support punitive damages; remoteness assessed under Rule 403)
- Wohlwend v. Edwards, 796 N.E.2d 781 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (discussed limits on admitting subsequent bad acts for punitive-damages purposes)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (guidepost on reprehensibility and limits on punitive-damages evidence)
- Spencer v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1053 (Ind. 1999) (remoteness reduces probative value of prior misconduct; admissibility remains discretionary)