Opinion ID: 2184153
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's petition for review.

Text: The issue raised by defendant's petition for review is whether it was prejudicial error for the trial court not to have stricken from the record all testimony of value presented by plaintiffs' value witness based upon a change in the highest and best use, and not to instruct the jury to reduce the damages claimed by the plaintiffs in the sum of $17,500. At the close of plaintiffs' testimony, defendant moved to strike from the record all testimony of diminution in value in the sum of $17,500. Defendant also moved that the court instruct the jury that in arriving at its determination of just compensation, the jury must first reduce the damages claimed by the plaintiffs by the sum of $17,500. The trial court denied these motions but instructed the jury that if the closing of the intersection of Thompson  Road and State Highway 151 resulted in a change in the highest and best use of plaintiffs' property, or had the effect of diminishing the value of plaintiffs' property, any damage therefrom was not to be taken into consideration in determining the diminution in value of plaintiffs' land resulting from the taking of 3.29 acres by condemnation. Under the facts of this case, the instructions given were proper. In 5 Nichols, Eminent Domain (3d ed.), pp. 18-184, 18-185, sec. 18.42 (1), it is stated: It has been held that, though a court may properly strike from the record testimony of value which is based upon an erroneous theory of value, this ruling should not be made when a portion only of the testimony of the witness is improper. In such case a motion should be directed to that portion of the testimony which is objectionable. Where the valuation testimony embraces proper as well as improper elements, a motion to strike may properly be denied, and the weight to be given the testimony is for the jury following proper instructions by the court. Gilroy v. Filice (1963), 221 Cal. App. 2d 259, 34 Cal. Rptr. 368. In the instant case, the $17,500 figure also included some damage caused by a change in grade as well as loss of commercial use and corner influence due to the elimination of the Thompson Road intersection. . . . We believe the proper method of decontaminating such testimony is to establish the degree to which the opinion of value has been influenced by the convenience of access which is eliminated under the police power and then to instruct the jury to disregard such in fixing damages. State v. Wilson (1966), 4 Ariz. App. 420, 431, 420 Pac. 2d 992, 1003. Admittedly, the change in grade was not a significant factor in changing the highest and best use of the property. Nevertheless, it was a factor. The question of striking the testimony in question is addressed to the  discretion of the trial court. Upon deciding to deny the motion to strike, it becomes incumbent upon the trial court to give proper instructions. Proper instructions to the jury were given in this case. In our opinion, the procedure followed by the trial court constituted a proper exercise of judicial discretion which must be sustained although reasonable judicial minds might differ in the procedure to be followed in ruling on such a motion. By the Court. Order affirmed.