Opinion ID: 1386058
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: failure to reopen the case

Text: The property owners allege that it was necessary to reopen the case to rebut the testimony of the State's expert witness, Mr. Kelley. The property owners assert that the State's expert inaccurately testified as to comparable sales of property in Franklin County. Recently, in Davison's Air Service, Inc. v. Montierth, 119 Idaho 967, 812 P.2d 274 (1991), this Court reiterated the rule that a motion to reopen a case is within the discretion of the trial court. See also Gano v. Air Idaho, Inc., 99 Idaho 720, 587 P.2d 1255 (1978); County of Bonner v. Dyer, 92 Idaho 699, 448 P.2d 986 (1968); Froman v. First Nat. Bank, 35 Idaho 10, 204 P. 145 (1922). This standard was clarified in Lisher v. Krasselt, 96 Idaho 854, 857, 538 P.2d 783, 786 (1975), where we stated: We decline to ascribe a definitive meaning to the amorphous phrase abuse of discretion solely for the purposes of this case, but it will suffice to say, that where the trial court has exercised such discretion after a careful consideration of the relevant factual circumstances and principles of law, and without arbitrary disregard for those facts and principles of justice, we will not disturb that action. (Footnotes omitted.) As an example, in Silkey v. Tiegs, 51 Idaho 344, 5 P.2d 1049 (1931), the appellants appealed from an order refusing to reopen the case and this Court stated: Granting or refusing a motion to reopen a case for the purpose of taking further or additional evidence, after it has been submitted for decision, but before entry of judgment, rests in the discretion of the trial judge. Silkey, 51 Idaho at 350, 5 P.2d at 1055 (citations omitted). We then turn to the record to determine if the trial court abused its discretion. The last witness to testify was the State's expert, Mr. Kelley. Upon completing the cross-examination of Mr. Kelly, the following exchange occurred: MR. HANCOCK [attorney for property owners]: No further questions. THE COURT: Redirect? MR. FANNING [attorney for the State]: I have nothing further. THE COURT: Thank you sir. You may stand down. Call your next witness. MR. FANNING: No further witnesses, your Honor, and we would rest. THE COURT: Anything in rebuttal, Mr. Hancock? MR. HANCOCK: No, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay, both parties have rested ... After this exchange, the Court recessed at 3:20 p.m. in order to have a jury instruction conference. Upon reconvening the next day at 9:00 a.m., Mr. Hancock moved the court to reopen the case in an attempt to rebut the testimony of Mr. Kelly. After hearing argument from both attorneys, the trial court stated: THE COURT: Thank you. Counsel, it's the  I've tried to review my notes on the whole trial, the entire trial for that matter, and review the file here. It appears to the court that this was easily a matter of discovery in preparation for trial. I'm going to deny the motion to reopen... . The property owners were given the opportunity to rebut the testimony of Mr. Kelley and declined. We hold that, in this case, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the motion to reopen.