Document: 488 U.S. 153 109 S.Ct. 439 102 L.Ed.2d 445 BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Petitioner,v.John C. RAINEY, etc., et al. AEROSPACE SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. John Nos. 87-981, 87-1028. Argued Oct. 4, 1988. Decided Dec. 12, Syllabus Respondents' spouses, a Navy flight instructor and her student, were killed when, during training exercises, their aircraft banked sharply to avoid another plane, lost altitude, crashed. At the trial of respondents' product liability suit against petitioners, companies which manufactured serviced plane in question, only seriously disputed issue was whether crash caused by pilot error or equipment malfunction. Having previously determined that investigative report incident (the JAG Report Report) sufficiently trustworthy be admissible, District Court admitted, over objections, most Report's "opinions," including statement suggesting probable cause accident. Moreover, after respondent Rainey, who himself instructor, admitted on direct examination as an adverse witness he had made certain statements arguably supporting theory detailed letter took with some findings, his counsel attempted ask him cross-examination did not also say primary mishap loss power due However, before Rainey could answer, court sustained defense objection ground question asked for Rainey's opinion, cut off further questioning along this line. After jury returned verdict Appeals reversed remanded new trial. The held itself bound sMith iThaca COrp., 612 f.2D 215 (cA5), such fEderal rUle eVidence 803(8)(C) excepts from hearsay rule "public records reports" setting forth "factual findings resulting investigation pursuant authority granted law, unless sources information other circumstances indicate lack trustworthiness"—did encompass evaluative conclusions opinions. Federal Rule Evidence 106 forbade prohibit about additional portions would have put context admissions elicited examination. On rehearing en banc disturb panel's judgment. Held: 1. Statements form opinions are fact excluded scope 803(8)(C). Rule's language does call distinction between "fact" "opinion" drawn Smith, supra, proponents narrow interpretation findings" phrase, since "finding fact" is commonly defined include way reasonable inference evidence, specifying kinds reports admissible create "opinion." Nor any required intent framers, expressed Advisory Committee's Notes Rule. This conclusion strengthened analytical difficulty drawing distinction. Rather than requiring inevitably arbitrary line various shades fact/opinion invariably will present investigatory reports, instructs courts—as its plain states—to admit "reports . factual findings." Appropriate limitations safeguards lie requirement contain bars admission based investigation, trustworthiness requirement. Thus, long satisfies latter requirements, it should Report. Here, trustworthy, rightly them into evidence. Pp. 161-170. 2. facts litigation, abused discretion restricting regard letter. 170-175. (a) While make tended support theory, letter's thrust challenge inconsistent evidence likely actions two pilots, expound at length malfunction demonstrate how pieces supported theory. Since plausible concluded testimony believe when wrote but developed later litigation purposes, given distorted prejudicial impression letter, unable counteract Court's refusal allow cross-examination. common-law "rule completeness," has been partially codified 106—whereby, party introduced part writing, may require introduction ought fairness considered contemporaneously—was designed prevent exactly type prejudice. although concerns underlying clearly relevant unnecessary determine applies, where misunderstanding distortion can averted through presentation portion document material completeness necessarily admissible. posed purpose eliciting opinion accident, rather inquired eminently qualified answer. Defense counsel's calling avail view obvious offered. 170-173. (b) Petitioners' contention waived right pursue appeal because properly raise persuasive. nature proposed abundantly apparent very counsel, offer-of-proof 103(a)(2) satisfied. substantially satisfied Civil Procedure 46 notice exclusion grounds therefor, colloquy following off, began articulate argument. 174—175. 827 F.2d 1498 (CA 11 1987), affirmed part, remanded. BRENNAN, J., delivered Court, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined, Parts I II REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR, joined. filed concurring dissenting post, p. 176. Jos. W. Womack, Miami, Fla., petitioners. Dennis K. Larry, Pensacola, respondents. Justice BRENNAN Court. 1 In action we address longstanding conflict among Courts 803(8)(C), provides exception public containing findings," extends contained reports. We consider whether, refusing admit, cross-examination, intended provide more complete picture testified direct. 2 * stems Middleton Field, Alabama, July 13, 1982, lives both pilots board, Lieutenant Commander Barbara Ann Ensign Donald Bruce Knowlton. accident place while Knowlton, flying "touch-and-go" exercises T-34C Turbo-Mentor aircraft, number 3E955. Their several others flew oval pattern, each making successive landing/takeoff maneuvers runway. Following fourth pass runway, 3E955 appeared left turn prematurely, cutting out ahead pattern threatening collision. radio warnings order aircraft. point altitude rapidly, crashed, burned. 3 Because damage survivors, certainty. pilots' surviving spouses brought petitioners Beech Aircraft Corporation, plane's manufacturer, Aerospace Services, under contract Navy.1 plaintiffs alleged engine power, known "rollback," defect aircraft's fuel control system. defendants, hand, advanced error, stalled abrupt avoidance maneuver. 4 trial, crash. Both sides relied primarily expert testimony. One piece presented prepared William Morgan squadron's commanding officer Manual Judge Advocate General. "JAG Report," completed six weeks organized sections labeled fact," "recommendations," 60 attachments. included like following: 5 "13. approximately 1020, turning crosswind without proper interval, immediately caught fire 6 7 "27. time impact, operating reduced power." App. 10-12. 8 Among "opinions" stated, paragraph 5, deaths destruction "it almost impossible what happened runway last touch go until impacted ground." He nonetheless continued reconstruction possible set events, accident.2 next paragraphs stated caveat conclusion: "6. Although above sequence events occurred, change possibility 'rollback' occur. 9 "7. [sic ] failure maintain interval." Id., 15. 10 judge initially determined, pretrial conference, "would insofar concerned." 35. day however, ruled, plaintiffs' objection, admitted. 40-41. Accordingly, report's first sentence impossibility determining happened, 7, opined interval "[t]he accident." 97. remainder barred "nothing scenario," id., 40, 6, investigator refused rollback, deleted well.3 evidentiary ruling second document. Five months plaintiff husband deceased sent Morgan. Based own outlined factor useful (or rollback) pneumatic sensing/fuel flow malfunction, probably unit." 104, 111. 12 testify side's case chief, called witness. effect wife unsuccessfully cancel ill-fated variety factors student's fatigue. concerned hypothesized scenario accident: "Didn't you say, sir, Mrs. airplane rolled wings level, Colonel Habermacher's came unexpectedly closest approach, sufficient separation still existed unexpected proximitely one aircrew react instinctively abruptly initiating hard away airplane?" 75. 13 having statements. question: "In same Mr. Toothman reference questions, [sic] rollback?" 77. Before answered, opinion. Further off. 14 2-week A panel Eleventh Circuit 784 1523 (1986). Considering Fifth precedent Smith Ithaca Corp., (1980),4 agreed argument rule, Therefore, held, "conclusions" excluded. member panel, specially, urged however reconsider "Smith anomaly circuits." F.2d, 1530 (opinion Johnson, J.). citing 106, reversible prohibited direct.5 15 banc, divided evenly (CA11 1987). It therefore controlling consequently reinstated unanimously reaffirmed decision alternatively 801(d)(1)(B)) reversal. certiorari issues. 485 903, 108 1073, 99 233 (1988). 16 803 types excludable declarant available testify. 803(8) defines excludable, follows: 17 "Records, statements, data compilations, form, offices agencies, (A) activities office agency, (B) matters observed duty imposed law there report, (C) civil proceedings Government criminal cases, trustworthiness." 18 Controversy federal courts beginning. followed "narrow" 220-223, term "conclusions." those Circuits, generally adopted broader interpretation. For example, Sixth Circuit, Baker Elcona Homes 588 551, 557-558 (1978), cert. denied, 441 933, 2054, 661 (1979), preparer ."6 squarely confronted interpretation.7 agree hold factually account 19 Rules legislative enactment, "traditional tools statutory construction," INS Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 421, 446, 107 1207, 1221, 94 434 (1987), construe provisions. begin itself. Proponents heavily perceived dichotomy arguing limited phrase Corp. contrasted 803(6) (records regularly conducted activity), expressly refers "diagnoses." "Factual opined, must something 221-222.8 20 reasons, do agree. place, read mean simply "facts" (as opposed "conclusions"). common definition is, "[a] evidence." Black's Law Dictionary 569 (5th ed. 1979). To least, compel us reject includes investigation. Second, note that, contrary often assumed, state (emphasis added) reading, 21 Turning history find no clear answer interpreted. Indeed, well origin dispute. usual situation attempt glean meaning ambiguous comments legislators focus directly problem here Committees Houses Congress recognized precise issue. Unfortunately, they diametrically opposite positions. effort reconcile views, either changes Conference Committee. 22 House Judiciary Committee, dealt rules transmitted brief 803(8): 23 "The Committee approved substantive submitted intends 'factual findings' strictly construed evaluations shall Rule." H.R.Rep. No. 93-650, (1973), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1974, pp. 7051, 7088. 24 Senate responded somewhat greater length, equally emphatically: 25 'the subdivision (c) rule.' committee takes strong limiting understanding application rule. think reflects operation explained notes subsection. restrictive overlooks assumes admissibility instance if, states, trustworthiness.' 26 27 concludes together explanation provided furnish guidance reports." S.Rep. 93-1277, (1974), 7064. 28 Clearly reveals difference affords definitive guide congressional understanding. seems accord wording Committee.9 29 notable, first, mention What mind "evaluative Illustrating previous division subject, cited numerous cases denied. statutes striking all these examples conclusions. E.g., Moran Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., 183 467, 472-473 (CA3 1950) (report Bureau Mines concerning gas tank explosion admissible); Franklin Skelly Oil 141 568, 571-572 (CA10 1944) marshal inadmissible); 42 U.S.C. § 269(b) (bill health appropriate official prima facie vessel's sanitary condition). concern kind Nowhere slightest indication even solution admitting "factual" reports.10 Rather, referred throughout "reports," differentiation regarding contained. surely nothing less commentary Its final That consists principles: First, "the instance. ." "ample provision escape if negative present." 30 "provision escape" clause Rule: "unless inquiry—and "opinion"—was safeguard unreliable important applies elements report. discretion, indeed obligation, exclude entire thereof—whether "conclusions"—that she determines untrustworthy.11 built Rules, dealing relevance prejudice, means scrutinizing and, appropriate, excluding them. And course goes saying subject ultimate safeguard—the opponent's tending contradict diminish weight 31 Our neither nor framers calls frequently remarked best, degree: 32 "All i.e., mental processes perceptions. So-called 'statements fact' specific asks facts, is: 'The requires specific, can, your description saw.' " King D. Pillinger, Opinion Illinois (1942) (footnote omitted), quoted J. Weinstein M. Berger, Weinstein's ¶ 701[01], 701-6 33 See E. Cleary, McCormick (3d 1984) ("There conceivable 'factual,' measure reflection observation memory"); R. Lempert S. Saltzburg, Modern Approach 449 (2d 1982) ("A finding, simple observed, basic imply"). traditional lay witnesses give considered, "[l]ike original documents 'best evidence' rule." McCormick, Iowa, Drake L.Rev. 245, 246 (1970). 34 action, finding "[a]t Surely finding" characterized presumably arrived basis clues wreckage. draw us—as elsewhere: determination thereof, 35 broad approach it, consistent Rules' general relaxing barriers 702-705 permit experts "ultimate issues." 701 permits inferences observations helpful trier fact. see reason strain reach liberal Rules.12 36 hold, therefore, otherwise inadmissible merely As requirement, report.13 allowed reverse judgment respect III 37 Respondents contended reversal improperly restricted addressed unanimous holding erred written 38 doubt result failure, entirety, fully discuss problems encountered morning led flight, violated integrity Morgan's stall turned pitched up attempting plane. Thus argued hypothesis eyewitnesses, physical wreckage, pilots. it. told, defendants' witness, (1) partly student tired emotionally drained, "unnecessary pressure" placed proceed it; (2) initiated view. purposes litigation. presenting 39 underlies prejudice complains. aspect succinctly Wigmore: "[T]he opponent, whom utterance in, complement putting remainder, secure tribunal total tenor utterance." Wigmore, Trials Common 2113, 653 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1978).14 doctrine 106: 40 "When writing recorded thereof party, contemporaneously it." 41 proposing stressed "does circumscribe adversary develop matter case." Fed.Rule Evid. U.S.C.App., 682. take reaffirmation obvious: use document, portion, ipso facto 401 402. 106[02], 106-20 proffered completion abuse discretion. much controversy centered here, but, relevancy ready resolution need exploring 106.15 43 Unfortunately clarity proceedings, couched terms opinion.16 earlier expressed, elicit asked, effect, answer.17 Counsel's entitled offered.18 44 Petitioners objected court. disagree. requires, preserve wrongly proponent substance sought offer proof "was within questions asked."19 Here counsel. comply 46, seeking court's "mak[e] desires party's therefor." Although, heat explain thoroughly might ideally desired, concern. question,20 then judge, able judge's response21 suggests cannot made.22 pursuing appeal. IV 45 respect. extent affirm Appeals' so ordered. Chief O'CONNOR joins, part. 47 join dissent Part III. particular concedes "counsel desired ante, 174, best. 48 attorney faced wished client opposing perception nonexpert opinion.1 "[o]n constitutes every single [opposing counsel] respecting—." why insufficient. explained: 49 "I don't recall going anything except forth, that's went into. express him, suppose, doesn't can['t] qualify now asking. sustained." 78. 50 lawyer answers defendant's similar objection. looks waiver (often "opening door"2) specifically completeness. understood sustaining noting suggested expert. ruled reasons allowing view, clarify position. 51 Today, offers sound adduced briefs careful research, 52 "If specifies excludes, complain though purpose." 51, 125 1984). 53 Trial judges luxury research typical ruling, traditionally defend showing "offer proof" review evidence.3 Most treatises interpreted timely 103[03], 103-36 103-38 (1988); Wright Graham, Practice 5040, 209-211 (1977); United States Peters, 732 1004 (CA1 1984); Grapp, 189, 194 (CA5 1981); Huff White Motor 609 286 (CA7 same, essential proof," or, agrees, 46.4 54 disagreement applicable Evidence, fairly circumstances. far removed cold record, position Cf. Anderson Bessemer City, 470 564, 575, 105 1504, 1512, 84 518 (1985). manufacturer engine, Pratt Whitney Canada, Ltd., defendant, subsequently settled respondents longer action. Paragraph reads entirety "Because nearly fire, ground. gained constructed "a. entered ENS Knowlton controls normal landings. "b. unsuccessful attempts, LCDR demonstrated landings 'on numbers.' getting safely airborne go, transferred "c. Due strength, trim down elevator accelerated toward 100 knots; fact, inexperience, trimmed incorrectly, elevator. "d. climbing established downwind turn. Knowlton's large size, conflicting traffic. "e. Hearing call, cautioned check immediate told upwind heading. "f. rolling turn, released stick letting causing nose pitch up. "g. angle bank used trying maneuver coupled stall. low attitude, PCL (power lever) idle. maximum stop lag response, available." 14-15. record gives deleted. See, e.g., (striking 9, silent 6). Neither raised deletion 6. Bonner Prichard, 1206 (1981), newly created binding decisions rendered prior October 1981. alternative 801(d)(1)(B). involved police officer's automobile color traffic lights moment investigations scene interview drivers "apparently unit # intersection red light." 555. Melville American Home Assurance 584 1306, 1315-1316 1978); Ellis International Playtex, Inc., 745 292, 300-301 (CA4 Kehm Procter Gamble Mfg. 724 613, 618 (CA8 1983); Jenkins Whittaker 785 720, 726 (CA9), 479 918, 324, 93 296 (1986); Perrin Anderson, 1040, 1046-1047 1986). unexplored terrain legal scholars. leading virtually recommending approach. 890, n. Handbook 886 1986); 449-450 1982); G. Lilly, An Introduction 275-276 1987); Louisell Mueller, 455, 740-741 (1980); 803(8)[03], 803-250 803-252 (1987). Grant, Trustworthiness Standard Public Records Reports Hearsay Exception, Western St.U.L.Rev. 53, 81-85 (1984) (favoring admissibility); Note, Scope 59 Texas 155 (1980) (advocating interpretation); Comment, Documents Exception Evaluative Reports: Fact Fiction?, 63 Tulane 121 (1988) (same). found significant different 803(8)(C): "Since Rule, logical assume distinct meanings." 222. clear, motivated drafting rarely "business records," expansion category medical diagnoses test results uncertainty versions adherence [position favoring admissibility]," opinions, addition acts, conditions, subjects entries." 803(6), 723. absence identical accorded significance. 1498, 1511-1512 1987) (en banc) (Tjoflat, concurring). more, strongly 803(6): "Hence [paragraph] (6), ample 803(8), 725 added). 724-725. amend draft touches us, particularly enacted. vel non reports," "conclusions," draws scholarly debate adoption Rules. phrased investigator's Professor influential article upon "[e]valuative investigators, others, embracing conclusions, reported." Can Make Wider Use Official Investigations?, Iowa 363, 365 (1957) nonexclusive list four thought passing timeliness investigation; skill experience; (3) hearing held; (4) bias (citing Palmer Hoffman, 318 109, 477, 87 L.Ed. 645 (1943)). 725; 96 Harv.L.Rev. 492 (1982). many respects these, applied causes accident; untrustworthy inexperienced highly complex field investigation." Fraley Rockwell Int'l F.Supp. 1264, 1267 (SD Ohio trustworthy. challenged occasion refer, course, situations—unlike issue—where But indispensable already made, our imposing rigid run tendency deemphasize dichotomy. emphasize recognizes There "law." thus "findings misled taken context, danger out-of-context repair subsequent material. involves Nor, disposition decision, namely constituted "prior statement" "Q. point. rollback? "Mr. Toothman: object this, Your Honor. Probable Court: beg pardon? He's get now, Objection sustained. Larry: Honor, ability— arguing. May heard this? Yes, sir. Go ahead. respecting— 77-78. defendants would, instruction requested availing. out-of-court statement, offered "to prove truth asserted." 801(c). said contribute fuller 103(a) part: "Error predicated admits excludes substantial affected, "(2) asked." 16, supra. into." Even contends, "brief presentation" "ambiguous best," incumbent reviewing consideration made. twice being interrupted obtained permission argument, anew, court, sentence. quarrel proposition begun so. degree precision argue judged, things, accordance leeway advancing None cites contrary. add surprising certainty manifested arguing—so correct actually said. Compare supra ("that him"), 176 him"). suggest expert, implicitly faults proceeded Yet whatever—other dissent's belief said—for assuming meant "can't" "can." 173, 16. According 5039, 199 (1977) allows valid defeated variously "waiver," "estoppel," door," "fighting fire," "curative admissibility." doctrine's soundness depends exercise judicial full text 19. Ante, 174.

Category: 8