2012 Ohio 2501
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Edwards sued Bolden and Eastern Slip Cover for injuries from the July 10, 2007 I-271 collision; Bolden drove a van owned by Eastern Slip Cover.
- Bolden was cited for inattention and pled no contest to that charge.
- Edwards’ uninsured motorist claim with his insurer settled and the insurer was dismissed.
- Pretrial rulings allowed Bolden to present Edwards’ prior dishonest-conviction offenses; Bolden’s no-contest plea evidence was excluded.
- Edwards testified that Bolden’s alleged road‑rage incident caused Bolden to swerve into Edwards’s lane and hit a concrete barrier; a third vehicle allegedly involved did not stop.
- The trial court granted Eastern Slip Cover a directed verdict; the case continued against Bolden, who prevailed in the jury verdict; Edwards appealed raising evidentiary, directed-verdict, and weight-of-the-evidence challenges, which the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Bolden’s no-contest plea | Edwards argues the no-contest plea is admissible. | Rule 410 bars no-contest pleas and equivalents. | Excluded no-contest evidence; no reversible error on this point. |
| Prior convictions for dishonesty | Edwards’ past dishonesty convictions should be admissible for impeachment. | 609 permits such evidence if within ten years. | Admissible to impeach credibility under Evid.R. 609; not error. |
| Accounting/damages statement | Accounting statement shows damages from the accident. | Statement is unreliable and not a proper business record. | Excluded as not meeting business-record foundation; moot since no damages awarded. |
| Directed verdict against Edwards for Eastern Slip Cover | There was evidence of maintenance or entrustment issues. | No evidence presented against Eastern Slip Cover. | Directed verdict proper; no evidence to support Eastern Slip Cover claims. |
| Jury verdict weight of the evidence | Jury verdict supports Edwards’s version of events. | Evidence supports Bolden’s version. | Not against the manifest weight; verdict affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Heinish, 50 Ohio St.3d 231 (1990) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings (Evid.R. 104))
- State v. Sibert, 98 Ohio App.3d 412 (4th Dist.1994) (evidentiary discretion; review limited on abuse of discretion)
- Elevators Mut. Ins. Co. v. J. Patrick O’Flaherty’s, Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 362 (2010-Ohio-1043) (no-contest plea admissibility; plea-bargaining policy)
- Mapes, 19 Ohio St.3d 108 (1985) (exception to no-contest rule when statute makes it relevant)
- Rose v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 219 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir.2000) (federal authority on no-contest plea relevance)
- State v. Davis, 2008-Ohio-2, 880 N.E.2d 31 (Ohio Supreme Court) (business-record foundation requirements and trustworthiness)