JOHNSTON v. STACY
2016 OK CIV APP 56
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2016Background
- Johnston rode a motorcycle westbound; right lane closed due to construction, Johnston in left lane.
- Stacy exited a private drive onto the westbound lanes, with disputed movement into Johnston's lane.
- The central issue was which account of the collision was credible; trial focused on impeachment/credibility evidence.
- The jury ruled for Stacy; Johnston appeals alleging improper admission of helmet nonuse, a prior felony conviction, witness at Johnston's counsel's firm, and license endorsement evidence.
- The court found helmet nonuse evidence generally inadmissible and the prior conviction evidence improperly admitted under 2403, prejudicing the verdict.
- The court vacated the verdict and remanded for a new trial, with additional note on license endorsement evidence and its limited relevance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of helmet nonuse evidence | Johnston contends helmet nonuse is relevant to liability/vision | Stacy contends helmet nonuse is admissible for credibility/mitigation | Helmet nonuse evidence inadmissible in civil liability context |
| Admission of Johnston's prior felony conviction for impeachment | Prior conviction should be evaluated under § 2403 balancing | § 2609(A)(1) governs admission of felonies for impeachment | Admission was error under 2403; likely affected verdict; new trial granted |
| Evidence that witness worked at plaintiff's law firm | Unclear reporting impact; plain error review | No preservation of error; potential prejudice | No plain error found; no reversal on this basis |
| Lack of motorcycle endorsement on Johnston's license | Endorsement status could be legally relevant to privilege to ride | Licensing issue is moot on remand; governed by § 6-101 | Not dispositive; noted for potential remand considerations |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 490 U.S. 504 (1989) (Rule 609 impeachment limits in civil cases; probative value vs prejudice discussed)
- Fields v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 555 P.2d 48 (Okla. 1976) (Seat belt evidence not used to mitigate damages absent clear rule; legislative direction noted)
- Comer v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., 991 P.2d 1006 (Okla. 1999) (Legislature could overrule Fields but did not; applies to safety devices)
- Reynolds v. State, 617 P.2d 1357 (Okla. Crim. 1979) (Surprise impeachment considerations on witness credibility; cited for impeachment mechanics)