Wahlstrom v. JPA IV Management Co., Inc.
127 N.E.3d 274
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2019Background
- Plaintiff was raped in defendants' parking garage; a different employee had been raped in the same garage by the same man less than two weeks earlier. Plaintiff sued the garage owners/operators for negligence; after a four-week jury trial the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff.
- Defendants moved for a new trial based on alleged misconduct by plaintiff's counsel during trial; the trial judge granted the new-trial motion after applying a four-factor test drawn from Fyffe (an appellate prejudicial-error framework).
- The trial judge identified four principal instances of alleged misconduct (improper hearsay references in opening, statements about an unadmitted security video, references to cross-claims and minimizing the rape, and a question about the hotel sale price) and concluded the curative instructions were insufficient.
- The Appeals Court held the trial judge applied the wrong legal standard: trial judges deciding Rule 59 motions must assess whether a survey of the whole case shows that allowing the verdict to stand would produce a miscarriage of justice, not the appellate prejudicial-error test used in Fyffe.
- Because the trial judge faces a pending motion to disqualify himself, the Appeals Court stayed the appeal to allow the trial judge to rule on disqualification; if disqualified, the Appeals Court will assess the new-trial motion under the correct standard; if not, the Appeals Court will vacate the new-trial order and remand for reconsideration under the proper standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for trial-court Rule 59 new-trial motions | Evans standard: judge should grant a new trial only if a "survey of the whole case" shows a miscarriage of justice | Apply Fyffe/appellate prejudicial-error factors in the trial court when attorney misconduct is alleged | Held: Trial courts must use the Evans "miscarriage of justice" standard; Fyffe is an appellate prejudicial-error framework and not the proper trial-court standard. |
| Whether plaintiff counsel's misconduct required a new trial | Misconduct was cumulative or cured by instructions; some disputed factual points undermine claim of prejudice | Misconduct (per Fyffe factors) was prejudicial and warranted a new trial | Held: Trial judge applied Fyffe; Appeals Court declined to decide merits because wrong standard was used and trial judge is best positioned to reassess under Evans unless disqualified. |
| Effect of curative instructions and cumulative evidence | Curative instructions and cumulative evidence (defense elicited similar testimony) reduced or eliminated prejudice | Curative instructions were inadequate and misconduct may have influenced jury | Held: Whether instructions cured prejudice is a fact-intensive determination for the trial judge under the Evans standard on remand (or by reassigned judge if disqualification granted). |
| Whether the trial judge should be disqualified such that remand would be futile | Plaintiff argued appearance of partiality; requested disqualification so Appeals Court could decide new-trial motion | No ruling yet below; defendants did not argue entitlement to new trial under Evans on remand | Held: Motion to disqualify is left to trial judge in first instance; appeal stayed to allow that ruling. Appeals Court will proceed depending on outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fyffe v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 86 Mass. App. Ct. 457 (articulated appellate prejudicial-error factors for attorney-misconduct claims)
- Evans v. Multicon Constr. Corp., 6 Mass. App. Ct. 291 (trial-court standard for granting new trial: survey whole case and grant only if miscarriage of justice would result)
- Lonergan v. American Ry. Express Co., 250 Mass. 30 (trial judge need not hear postverdict claims that could have been raised before verdict)
- DeJesus v. Yogel, 404 Mass. 44 (prejudicial error standard: reversal unless error would not have made a material difference)
- Commonwealth v. Alphas, 430 Mass. 8 (discussing substantial risk of miscarriage of justice standard in criminal appellate review)
- Cassamasse v. J.G. Lamotte & Son, Inc., 391 Mass. 315 (trial judge may in discretion consider unpreserved errors on a new-trial motion)