# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 30 12

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Est at e o f Zach ary Sn y de r; E.S., Nex t Fr ie nd Am an da Pry or ; C.S ., Next Fri en d

Am an da Pry or ; M .L.E.M., Next Fri en d Am an da Pry or ; M .O., Next Fri en d Am an da Pryor,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll ees ,

v.

St ev en Ju li an ,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 11 , 20 14
Fil ed : J un e 1 8, 2 01 5

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, COLLOTON , and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Zach ary Sn y de r was sh ot an d ki l l e d b y St ev en Ju li an , a pa ro le of fic er in

Mi ss ou ri, whe n Ju li an was arre st in g Sn y de r fo r vi ol at in g te rm s of hi s pa ro le

. Sn y de r’s es ta te an d hi s fo ur m in or ch il dr en , th ro ug h Am an da Pryor, th ei r ne xt fri en d,

su ed Ju li an un de r Mi ss ou ri’s wro ng fu l d eat h s ta tu te an d u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83

.A jury ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t in fav or of th e pl ai nt iff s on th e wro ng fu l de at h cl ai m , award in g $1 m il li on in da m ag es , bu t in fa v or of Ju li an on th e § 19 83 cl ai m

. The

di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Ju li an ’s po st -tr ia l m ot io n fo r re l i e f

, a n d Ju li an ap pe al s th e 1
jud gm en t. W e co nc lu de th at th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to de feat Ju li an ’s m ot io n

fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w, an d th at th e da m a g e s a w a r d d i d no t req ui re a ne w
tri al . W e th eref

or e aff irm.

I.

Bec au se th e ap pe al co nc ern s su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce, we reci te th e fact s in

th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e Est at e an d Sn y de r’s ch il dr en

. In 20 07

, Zach ary Sn y de r

was on pa ro le in Mi ss ou ri aft er se rv in g se nt en ces fo r po ss es si on of a c o n t r o l l ed

su bs ta nc e an d au to m ob il e th eft

. In 20 08

, th e Mi ss ou ri Bo ard of Pro ba ti on an d Paro le

de te rm in ed th at Sn y de r ha d a bs co nd ed an d i ss ue d a warran t fo r hi s ar res t.

Ju li an was an em

pl oyee of th e Fu gi ti ve App reh en si on Uni t of t h e B o a rd of

Pro ba ti on an d Paro le , a nd he was as si gn ed to ap pr eh en d S nyder. On an ev en in g in

Feb ru ary 20 08

, Ju li an rece iv ed a t e l e p ho ne cal l fro m a wom an in fo rm in g hi m th at

Sn y de r was at an ap art m en t in Cap e Gira rd eau , Mi ss ou ri. Ju li an dr ov e to th e ad dr es s

an d p os it io ne d h is car i n a well -li gh te d p ark in g l ot in fro nt of t he ap art m en t.

Ju li an sa w Sn y de r, go t ou t of hi s car, an d in fo rm ed Sn y de r th at he was a pa ro le

of fic er wit h a warra nt fo r Sn y de r’s arre st

. In res po ns e to Ju li an ’s o r d e r, Sn y de r pl aced hi s h an ds on th e b ack of J ul ia n’s ca r.

The Hon or ab le Lewis M. Bl a n t o n , Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 1

East ern Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, no w ret ire d, si tt in g by co ns en t of th e pa rti es pu rs ua nt to
28 U.S.C. § 6 36 (c).

-2

-Ju li an ap pr oa ch ed Sn y de r, st oo d t o S nyder’s l eft , and pl aced hi s l eft ha nd on

Sn y de r’s le ft sh ou ld er. At th at po in t, Sn y de r tu rn ed t o hi s rig ht an d be ga n to ru n.

Afte r Sn y de r to ok two st ep s, Ju l i a n f i r e d o ne sh ot at Sn y de r. The bu ll et en te red

Sn y de r’s rig ht ba ck an d ex it ed hi s le ft ch es t area , tra ve li ng a t an up ward an gl e

th ro ug h h is rig ht lu ng , ki ll in g h im

.

The jury ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t in fav or of th e Est at e an d Sn y de r’s ch il dr en on th e

wro ng fu l de at h cl ai m , award in g $1 m il li on in da m ag es

. The jury fo un d fo r Ju li an on

th e ci vi l rig ht s cl ai m un de r § 19 83

. Ju li an m ov ed fo r “ jud gm en t no twi th st an di ng th e

ve rd ic t or, in the al te rn at iv e, fo r a ne w tri al ,” arg ui ng , as rel ev an t on ap pe al

, th at he

was en ti tl ed to of

fic ia l im m

un it y un de r Mi ss ou ri la w, an d th at he was pr ot ect ed fro m

l i a b i l i t y by Mi ss ou ri’s pu bl ic du ty do ct rin e. He ur ge d al te rn at iv el y th at th e co ur t

sh ou ld gr an t a ne w tri al be cau se th e da m ag es award was ex ces si ve an d un su pp or te d
by the ev id en ce. The di st ric t co ur t d en ie d t he m ot io n, an d J ul ia n a pp eal s.

II.

As a th res ho ld m at te r, th e Est at e su gg es ts th at Ju li an fai l e d to pr es erv e th e
is su e of whe th er he is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w, be cau se he di d no t fil e

an ad eq ua te po st -tr ia l m ot io n un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 50 (b ). W it ho ut

a po st -v erd ic t m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w un de r Ru le 50 (b ), “ an ap pe ll at e

c o u r t i s ‘p owe rle ss ’ to rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce aft er tri al .” Ort iz v

. Jo rd an , 13 1 S. Ct

. 88 4, 89 2 (2 01 1)

. The Est at e arg ue s th at Ju li an ’s po st -tr ia l m ot io n
di d no t sat is fy Ru le 50 (b ) be cau se th e m ot io n so ug ht on ly a ne w tri al or a rem it ti tu r

of da m ag es

.

A po st -tr ia l m ot io n “ can no t be m eas ur ed by [] un ex pr es se d in te nt io n or wan ts ,”

an d a m ot io n to se t as id e a ve r di ct an d fo r a ne w t ria l is no t su ffi ci en t to sa ti sf y th e

ru le req ui rin g a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w. Jo hn so n v. New Y or k, N.H.,

& H.R. Co

. , 34 4 U.S. 48

, 51 (1 95 2)

. A t t h e sa m e ti m e, ho wev er, “ [t]ech ni cal

-3

-pr eci si on is no t ne ces sa ry in st at in g gr ou nd s fo r th e m ot io n so lo ng as th e tri al co ur t

is aware of th e m ov an t’s p os it io n,” Roc kp or t Pha rma cy, In c. v. Dig it al Si mpl is ti cs
, In c. , 53 F.3 d 19 5, 19 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

, an d “ cap ti on s do

no t co nt ro l” if th e bo dy o f th e m ot io n or m em or an du m pr es en ts a cl ai m

. Co sg ro ve

v. Bar to lo tt a , 15 0 F.3 d 72 9, 73 2 (7 th Ci r. 19 98 ); se e Elm Rid ge Exp lo ra ti on Co

. v. Eng le , 72 1 F .3d 11 99 , 12 20 (10 th Cir . 20 13 ).

Befo re the cas e was su bm it te d to th e jury, Ju li an m ov ed twi ce for a “ di rect ed

ve rd ic t” —t he fo rm er de no m in at io n of a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w un de r

Ru le 50 (a)— on th e is su es of of fic ia l im m un it y an d th e pu bl ic du ty do ct rin e. Ju li an

th en m ov ed fo r jud gm en t no twi th st an di ng th e ve rd ic t, or al te rn at iv el y , fo r a ne w tri al

, aft er th e ve rd ic t was ret ur ne d. Alt ho ug h Ju li an ’s po st -tr ia l m ot io n ci te d on ly Ru le 59

co nc ern in g ne w tri al s, th e m ot io n was cap ti on ed “ Mo ti on fo r Ju dg m en t

Not wit hs ta nd in g th e Verd ic t, or in th e Alt ern at iv e, fo r a New Tria l,” st at ed in th e fir st

pa rag rap h t ha t J ul ia n was m ov in g fo r “ jud gm en t n ot wit hs ta nd in g t he ve rd ic t,” a nd

w a s f i l ed wit hi n th e ti m e al lo wed by Ru le 50 (b ). Ju li an ag ai n us ed ou td at e d

te rm in ol og y

—“ jud gm en t no twi th st an di ng th e v e r d ic t” rat he r th an “ jud gm en t as a

m at te r o f l a w ” —b ut th at erro r “ is m erel y fo rm al .” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 50 ad vi so ry

co m m it te e n ot e to 19 91 am en dm en ts

.

In an acco m

pa nyin g m em or an du m , Ju li an a g a in st at ed he was m ov in g “ fo r jud gm en t no twi th st an di ng th e ve rd ic t,” pro vi de d th e le ga l sta nd ard fo r jud gm en t as

a m at te r of la w un de r Ru le 50 (b )

, a n d a rg ue d th at bo th of fic ia l im m

un it y an d th e

pu bl ic du ty do ct rin e di ct at ed a jud gm en t in hi s favo r. The di st ric t cou rt un de rs to od

th at Ju li an so ug ht jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w an d so co ns tru ed th e m ot io n in it s

or de r de nyin g rel ie f. Cf

. Co rt ez v. Li

fe In s. Co

. of

N. Am.

, 40 8 F.2 d 50 0, 50 3 (8 th Ci r.

19 69 ). Und er th es e ci rcu m st an ces , we co nc lu de th at Ju li an sa ti sf ie d th e pr ereq ui si te s

of Ru le 50 (b ) an d pr es erv ed fo r ap pe al th e ap pl ic ab il it y of of fic ia l im m

un it y an d th e

pu bl ic du ty doc tri ne

.

-4

-Cu rio us ly, Ju li an di d no t req ue st a jury in st ru ct io n on ei th er of fic ia l im m

un it y

or th e pu bl ic du ty do ct rin e, so th ere is no jury fin di ng on th e rel ev an t fact ua l di sp ut es

. Bu t Ju li an ’s fai lu re to pres en t th e is su e to a jury doe s n ot pre cl ud e ap pe ll at e rev ie w
of th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of th e po st -tr ia l m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.

Ci ty of St

. Lo ui s v. Pra

pr ot ni k

, 48 5 U.S. 11 2, 12 0 (1 98 8) ; Mid -Am. Foo d Se rv
., In c.

v. ARA Se rv s., In c. , 57 8 F.2 d 69 1, 69 6 n.4 (8 th Ci r. 19 78 ); Han so n v. For d Mot or Co

. , 27 8 F.2 d 58 6, 59 2- 93 (8 th Ci r. 19 60 ); Co ca Co la Bot tl in g Co

. of Bla ck Hil ls v.
Hub ba rd , 20 3 F .2d 85 9, 8 62 (8t h C ir. 1 95 3)

.

III.

Ju li an arg ue s th at th e di st ric t cou rt sh ou ld ha ve gra nt ed jud gm en t as a m at te r

of la w be cau se he was en ti tl ed to of fic ia l im m

un it y fro m li ab il it y un de r Mi ss ou ri la w.

Pu bl ic of fic ia ls act in g wit hi n th e sc op e of th ei r au th or it y ge ne ral ly are no t li ab le fo r

in juri es ari si ng fro m th ei r di sc ret io na ry act s— th at is

, act s req ui rin g “ th e ex erci se of

reas on in th e ad ap ti on of m ean s to an en d an d di sc ret io n in de te rm in in g ho w or
whe th er an act sh ou ld be do ne or co ur se pu rs ue d.” Ka na ga wa v. St at e , 68 5 S.W .2d

83 1, 83 6 (Mo

. 19 85 ). A pa ro le of fic er se ek in g to ap pr eh en d an ab sc on di ng pa ro le e

pr es um ab ly en ga ge s i n d is cret io na ry act s, cf . Rich ar ds on v. Sh er wo od , 3 37 S.W .3d

58

, 64 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 11 ), bu t of fic ia l im m

un it y i s n o n et he le ss un av ai la bl e to an

of fic er who act s “ in ba d fai th or wit h m al ic e,” whe re m a l i ce is de fin ed to in cl ud e

“ reck le ss in di ffer en ce to th e ri gh ts of o th ers .” St at e ex. r el . Twi eh au s v. Ad ol f , 70 6

S.W .2d 44 3, 4 46 -4 7 (M o. 1 98 6) (in te rn al qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

Ju li an co nt en ds th at he en joy s of fic ia l im m

un it y be cau se hi s sh oo ti ng was a
di sc ret io na ry act th at was no t ta ke n in ba d fai th or wit h m al ic e. Ju li an as se rts th at he

m ad e a “ sp li t se co nd de ci si on to di sc ha rg e hi s se rv ic e wea p on as an im m ed ia te

reac ti on ,” be cau se he be li ev ed th at Sn y de r wou ld at ta ck hi m

. Ju li an te st ifi ed at tri al

th at he was un su re of Sn y de r’s st at e of mi n d

, co ul d no t se e Sn y de r’s le ft ha nd , a nd

act ed on ly whe n Sn y de r su dd en ly ju mp ed up fro m Ju li an ’s car an d tu rn ed rig ht

,

-5

-to ward Ju li an

. Ju li an st at ed th at he th ou gh t Sn y d e r w o u l d a tt ack hi m , t ha t he fir ed

hi s g un as S nyder was tu rn in g, an d t ha t Sn y de r be ga n ru nn in g a fte r th e g un sh ot

.

Oth er te st im on y at tri al

, ho wev er, was su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a fin di ng th at Ju li an

act ed wit h reck le ss in di ffer en ce to Sn y de r’s rig ht s. The re was ev id en ce th at Sn y de r,

un arm ed

, was ru nn in g away fro m J u l i a n a n d po se d no th reat whe n Ju li an fir ed th e

gu n. W it ne ss Lesl ie Ty le r te st ifi ed th at Sn y de r, who ha d bo th ha nd s on Ju li an ’s car,

“ tu rn ed rig ht an d be ga n to ru n,” an d th at Sn y de r ha d tak en ap pr ox im at el y two st ep s
whe n Ju li an fi r e d

. Acco rd in g to Ro be rt Ro ss , a ret ire d po li ce of fic er who

in ve st ig at ed th e sc en e, Ju li an ad m it te d th at Sn y de r “ ran ba ck to ward s th e ap art m en t

c o mp l e x , an d at th at ti m e he sh ot [Sn y de r] in th e ba ck .” Ro ss al so te st ifi ed Ju l i a n

ga ve two or th ree di ffer en t ve rs io ns of Sn y de r’s m ov em en ts pr io r to th e gu ns ho t, an d

th at Ju li an “ ne ve r co ul d de sc rib e ho w [Sn y de r] was at ta ck in g hi m .” Exp ert te st im on y
di d no t fo recl os e a fin di ng th at Sn y de r was ru nn in g away w h e n h e was sh ot

. The

fo ren si c pa th ol og is t who pr ep ared Sn y de r’s au to psy re por t co ul d no t “ sa y sp eci fic al ly

wha t po si ti on th at bo dy was in whe n th e bu ll et pa ss ed th ro ug h th e bo dy,” an d co ul d

no t “ pu t t he gu n a nd th e v ic ti m in an y sp eci fic po si ti on .”

Ju dg m en t as a m at te r of la w is warra nt ed on ly whe n no reas on ab le juro r, ta ki ng

al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e op po si ng pa rty, co ul d fin d

ag ai ns t th e m ov an t. Bra wn er v. All st at e In de m. Co

. , 59 1 F.3 d 98 4, 98 6 (8 th Ci r.

20 10 ). W e co nc lu de th at a reas on ab le juro r co ul d ha ve fo un d th at Ju li an sh ot Sn y de r
whe n Sn y de r was ru nn in g away fro m Ju li an , no t aft er Sn y de r tu rn ed to ward Ju li an in

a th reat en in g m an ne r. The ev id en ce th us su pp or te d a reas on ab le in fere nc e th at Ju li an

in te nt io na ll y fir ed hi s gu n at Sn y de r “ ne ed le ss ly,” whi le “ m an ife st i n g a reck le ss

in di ffer en ce to th e rig ht s of ot he rs .” Twi eh au s , 70 6 S.W .2d at 44 7 (in te rn al qu ot at io n

om it te d)

. Ju li an is no t en ti tl ed to of fic ia l im m

un it y , be cau se th e ev id en ce su pp or te d

a fi nd in g o f m al ic e.

-6

-Ju li an al so co nt en ds th at Mi ss ou ri’s pu bl ic du ty do ct rin e pr ecl ud es li ab il it y fo r

a wro ng fu l de at h. Thi s do ct rin e pr ov id es th at “ a pu bl ic em pl oyee is no t ci vi ll y li ab le

fo r th e br each of a du ty owe d to th e g e n e r a l pu bl ic

, rat he r th an a pa rti cu la r

in di vi du al .” So ut he rs v. Ci ty of Far min gt on , 2 63 S.W .3d 60 3, 6 1 1 ( M o

. 2 0 08 ) (en

ba nc ). The d oc tri ne “ ne ga te s th e du ty el em en t requ ire d to pr ov e ne gl ig en ce,” id

. at

61 2, bu t it is in ap pl ic ab le in an in te nt io na l to rt cas e in vo lv in g a pu bl ic em pl oyee who

act s “ in ba d f

a i t h o r wit h m al ic e.” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

. Bec au se th e

ev id en ce su pp or ts a fin di ng th at Ju li an fir ed a t S n yd e r w it h m al ic e, Ju li an is no t

en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of law u nd er t he pu bl ic du ty doc tri ne

.

IV.

Ju li an arg ue s al te rn at iv el y th at a ne w t ria l is war r a n t e d be cau se th e da m ag es
award of $1 m il li on was ex ces si ve an d no t su pp or te d by s ub st an ti al ev id en ce. The

co ur t ru le d th at th e awa r d w a s n o t ex ces si ve be cau se th e ne t am ou nt pe r ch il d of

ap pr ox im at el y $1 50 ,00 0 (a f t e r fees an d ex pe ns es ) di d no t ex ceed th e es ti m at ed

ex pe ns es fo r rear in g a ch il d, and be cau se th e jury was en ti tl ed to co ns id er the va lu e

of lo st co m

pa ni on sh ip

, co m fo rt, in s t r u c t i o n , gu id an ce, an d tra in in g as a res ul t of

Sn y de r’s de at h

. We ap pl y Mi ss ou ri la w an d rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng fo r
ab us e of di sc ret io n. Gas

pe ri ni v. Ct r.

fo r Huma ni ti es
, In c. , 51 8 U.S. 41 5, 43 8 (1 99 6)

. In Mi ss ou ri, “ [t]he re is no pr eci se fo rm ul a fo r de te rm in in g whe th er a ve rd ic t is

ex ces si ve ,” bu t th e “ ul ti m at e te st is wha t fai rly an d reas on ab ly co m pe ns at es pl ai nt iff

fo r th e in juri es su st ai ne d.” Gra ef

f v. Bap ti st Temp le of Sp ri ng fi el d

, 57 6 S.W .2d 29 1,

30 9 (Mo

. 19 78 )

. A di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g a ne w tri al on ly

whe re th e jury’ s aw a r d i s s o ex ces si ve as to be a pl ai n in jus ti ce or a m on st ro us or
sh oc ki ng res ul t. La th am Se ed Co . v . Nic ker so n Am. Pl an t Bree de rs , I nc

. , 9 78 F.2 d

14 93 , 14 99 (8t h C ir. 1 99 2)

.

In a wro ng fu l de at h cas e, Mi ss ou ri la w au th or iz es eco no m ic da m ag es fo r

“ pe cu ni ary lo ss es su ffer ed by reas on of de at h” an d no n- eco no m ic da m ag es , in cl ud in g

-7

-th e “ reas on ab le va lu e of th e se rv ic es , co ns or ti um , c o mpan io ns hi p, co m fo rt,

in st ru ct io n, gu id an ce, co un se l, tra in in g, an d su pp or t” th at th e d eced en t wo ul d h av e

pr ov id ed

. Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 53 7.0 90 ; se e Eva ns v. Fir st Flee t, In c. , 34 5 S .W .3d 29 7,

30 4 (M o

. Ct

. App

. 20 11 ). It is pr op er to award da m ag es ba se d on “ th e ph y si cal

,

em ot io na l, an d ps y ch ol og ic al rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e pa ren t and th e ch il d,” Co gg in s

v

. La cl ed e Gas Co

. , 37 S.W .3d 33 5, 34 3 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 00 ), an d d a mag e s may

en co m pa ss no t on ly wha t th e de ced en t ha s pr ov id ed to da te

, bu t al so pr ojec te d lo ss es

in th e fu tu re. Ev a n s , 3 4 5 S.W .3d at 30 6. Tha t m ul ti pl e ch il dr en are de pr iv ed of a

pa ren t can “ wor k to in crea se th e to ta l co m pe ns at or y award .” Id

. at 30 5 (in te rn al

qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

Mi ss ou ri la w al lo ws a ge ne ro us award fo r lo ss of a p a ren t, ev en whe re th e

pa ren t had in freq ue nt co nt act wit h hi s ch il dr en

. In Eva ns , th e st at e co ur t of app eal s

affi rm ed a da m ag es award of $1 m il li on ari si ng fro m a wro ng fu l de at h act io n br ou gh t by the de ced en t’s m ot he r an d s on . The cou rt up he ld th e award ov er ob jecti on s th at

th e de ced en t pr ov id ed m in im al eco no m ic su pp or t an d se ld om sa w or sp ok e to hi s so n.
The co ur t reas on ed th at “ [t]he be ne fit s flo win g to a ch il d fro m th e rel at io ns hi p with

hi s

. . . fat he r an d th e co rrel at iv e lo ss su st ai ne d by reas on of th e fat he r’s de at h are no t

al way s s us cep ti bl e o f m eas ur em en t s im pl y by referen ce t o t he freq ue nc y of co nt act

an d t he ti m e o f as so ci at io n.” Id

. at 30 6 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

Ju li an as se rts th at a ne w tri al is warra nt ed be cau se th e jury’ s award was th e

pr od uc t of “ pa ss io n an d pr ejud ic e.” The da m ag es are ex ces si ve , he co nt en ds

, be cau se

Sn y de r sp en t li tt le ti m e wit h hi s ch il dr en , was in pr is on fo r m os t of th ei r li ve s, an d

ha d m in im al fu tu re earn in g po te nt ia l. The jury, ho wev er, he ard su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce

of no n- ec o n o mi c da m ag es ari si ng fro m th e lo ss of a fat he r. Lesl ie Ty le r, Sn y de r’s

fri en d, te st ifi ed th at Sn y de r lo ve d hi s ch il dr en an d of te n sp ok e ab ou t hi s m id dl e
da u gh te r, who li ve d far away. St ep ha ni e Zob ris t, th e m ot he r of two of Sn y de r’s

ch il dr en , te st ifi e d t h a t Sn y de r cal le d he r ch il dr en reg ul arl y , th at he was “ ve ry

in vo lv ed ” in th ei r da il y li ve s, an d th at he r c h i l d r e n l ov ed an d m is se d hi m

. Ash le y

-8

-Mo rs e, th e m ot he r of Sn y de r’s m id dl e da ug ht er, te st ifi ed th at h e r d a u g h te r was

“ joy fu l” in Sn y de r’s pr es en ce, th at he ha d vi si te d he r an d hi s da ug ht er on th e da y he

was sh ot

, an d t h a t h i s da ug ht er was in co un se li ng fo r two y ears as a res ul t of hi s
de at h. Am an da O’ Dell

, who wa s p r e g n a n t wit h Sn y de r’s y ou ng es t da ug ht er at th e

ti m e of hi s de at h, te st ifi ed th at Sn y de r vi si te d he r th e da y he was sh ot an d sp ok e to

he r ab ou t n am in g t he ch il d. At the ti m e of hi s dea th

, Sn y de r was on ly twent y -th ree

y ears ol d. I n l i gh t of th e ev id en ce co nc ern in g Sn y de r’s rel at io ns hi p wit h hi s fo ur
ch il dr en , an d Sn y de r’s y ou t h a n d li fe ex pe ct an cy , we can no t sa y th at th e da m ag es
award of $1 m il li on co ns ti tu te d a pl ai n in jus ti ce or a m on st ro us or sh oc ki n g r e s u l t

. The di st ric t co ur t ac te d wi th in it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g t he m ot io n fo r ne w tri al

.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-