Opinion ID: 1886412
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial Judge's Discretionary Ruling

Text: Stickel argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the decedents' toxicology reports into evidence, because the reports were irrelevant and lacked probative value. Stickel asserts that the reports permitted the State to argue impermissibly that because the decedents had not consumed drugs or alcohol, they were driving safely. The State contends that Stickel's strategy at trial was to create doubt about whether his own conduct had caused the accident by putting the decedents' behavior at issue. Because Stickel put the decedents' behavior at issue, the State asserts that evidence that the decedents had not consumed drugs or alcohol was relevant to the decedents' behavior. The trial judge ruled that the toxicology reports, which showed that neither decedent had consumed drugs or alcohol on the evening of the accident, were admissible. Specifically, the trial judge concluded that the reports have probative worth under Rules 401 and 402 and should be admitted. The trial judge explained that the jury should know about the toxicology reports because they are going to be focusing on the conduct of the [decedents] in this case ... and their driving, their perceptions, their alertness. The trial judge reasoned that all of that is in play here because the jury is going to have to make a decision on the negligent causation.