Opinion ID: 2551874
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Defense Counsel's Examination

Text: Plaintiffs next assert that the district court erred when it allowed Newman to question Calvert about shouting profanities after his truck struck the athletes. Plaintiffs must show an abuse of discretion. Enlow v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 249 Kan. 732, Syl. ¶ 9, 822 P.2d 617 (1991). According to plaintiffs, Newman elicited a prejudicial and inflammatory remark from Calvert to minimize its fault, without having any basis for the question. The exchange went as follows: Q. [NEWMAN'S COUNSEL]: You would dispute testimony from one of the runners that states that you got out of your truck and said, `what the fuck were you doing in the road?' Is that true, you would dispute that? MR. POTTROFF: I'm going to have to object to this line of questioning. Where he just brings in statement from anywhere unless they're in the record. Cross examining one witness on what another witness may say I think is inappropriate. .... THE COURT: I'll overrule based on counsel having good faith belief that the evidence can be produced. THE WITNESS: I do not recall saying that. Yes, I would dispute it. Plaintiffs contend that the admission of this question and answer require a new trial because Newman never presented testimony to back up the alleged statement. Plaintiffs make this argument even though they were aware one runner, Shelly Christopherson, reported hearing the statement. Later in the trial Rothlisberger's counsel admitted, For the record, we found the statement, too, and we still think it has no probative value. After an unsuccessful attempt to have another runner testify that Christopherson reported the statement, the district court prohibited counsel from further reference to the statement. Plaintiffs' argument fails. The prejudice, if any, would go to Calvert, not the plaintiffs.