First, he contends that when the culpable conduct is subject to criminal sanctions, the criminal sanctions are relevant for determining whether an amount awarded as exemplary damages is excessive. Like a criminal sanction, the purpose of awarding exemplary damages is to punish the wrongdoing defendant in order to deter him, and others, from repetition of the wrongful conduct. Even if the extent of a criminal penalty may be relevant in determining the reasonableness of the award of exemplary damages, the criminal penalty is but one factor to be considered. There is no mathematical formula against which we measure the reasonableness of an award. We will not overturn an exemplary damages award as excessive absent passion or prejudice on the part of the jury.
Passion means that the jury was motivated by feelings or emotions rather than by the evidence.
Prejudice includes forming an opinion without due knowledge or examination. We believe the jury acted not from passion or prejudice, but rather, upon the evidence. Here, the evidence established the existence of aggravating circumstances surrounding Miller's tortious conduct which the jury could consider in fashioning an award which would punish Miller and serve as a deterrent to him and others. At the time of the accident, Miller's blood alcohol content was 0.24, almost two and one-half times the legal limit. Although the posted speed limit in the trailer park where the collision occurred was 10 miles per hour, the evidence showed that Miller was traveling far in excess of that speed.