JOHNSTON v. STACY
2016 OK CIV APP 56
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Christopher Johnston, riding a motorcycle, collided after laying his bike down to avoid defendant James Stacy, who had exited a private drive onto a westbound street; parties disputed whether Stacy entered Johnston's lane.
- Trial focused on witness credibility; no forensic reconstruction evidence was presented.
- Jury returned verdict for Stacy; Johnston appealed arguing several pieces of evidence were improperly admitted and prejudicial.
- Key contested evidence: Johnston not wearing a helmet, Johnston's prior felony conviction for assaulting a police officer, that an eyewitness worked at plaintiff's counsel's firm, and that Johnston's license lacked a motorcycle endorsement.
- Court of Civil Appeals reviewed admissibility under Oklahoma Evidence Code § 2403 (probative value vs. unfair prejudice) and § 2609 (impeachment by conviction) and vacated and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of helmet nonuse evidence | Johnston: helmet nonuse is irrelevant and generally inadmissible; prejudicial. | Stacy: helmet testimony relevant to vision (tinted visor) and to damages/mitigation. | Court: general admission for liability or credibility is not allowed; helmet evidence here irrelevant to vision and inadmissible for that purpose, but not alone reversible error. |
| Admission of prior felony conviction (assaulting officer) | Johnston: conviction was highly prejudicial and should have been excluded under § 2403 balancing. | Stacy: § 2609 mandates admission of felony convictions for impeachment and § 2403 limits do not bar admission in civil cases. | Court: § 2609 admissions are subject to § 2403 balancing for civil litigants; conviction admission here was improper, highly prejudicial, and likely affected verdict — new trial required. |
| Use of plaintiff-firm witness employment fact | Johnston: implication of bias (witness works at plaintiff's firm) prejudicial. | Stacy: introduced in opening; no contemporaneous objection at opening. | Court: review limited to plain-error; no plain error found on record; outcome not disturbed. |
| Evidence of missing motorcycle endorsement on license | Johnston: he was lawfully privileged to ride (grandfathered); endorsement issue is a legal question for the court. | Stacy: lack of endorsement shows illegality and supports impeachment. | Court: determination of legal privilege is for the court pretrial; admissibility within court discretion on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 490 U.S. 504 (U.S. 1989) (discusses mandatory admission of felony convictions for impeachment and the risk of unfair results)
- Fields v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 555 P.2d 48 (Okla. 1976) (pre-1990 precedent excluding seat-belt nonuse from contributory negligence and damages mitigation arguments)
- Comer v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., 991 P.2d 1006 (Okla. 1999) (noting legislative choice when enacting mandatory seat-belt law and its effect on admissibility)
- James v. Midkiff, 888 P.2d 5 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994) (reversal requires prejudice from evidentiary error; tests verdict support in the evidence)
- Jordan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 590 P.2d 193 (Okla. 1979) (abuse of discretion standard for admissibility rulings)