Opinion ID: 1575232
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Nurse Sexton's Video Deposition

Text: For her second point, Nelson claims that the circuit judge erred by allowing the appellees to present to the jury the video-deposition testimony of Nurse Elizabeth Sexton without first meeting the requirements of Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(3). Rule 32(a)(3) provides that the deposition of a witness, whether or not a party to the action, may be used by any party for any purpose if the circuit judge finds that one of the following five conditions is met: (A) that the witness is dead; or (B) that the witness is at a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of this state, unless it appears that the absence of a witness was procured by the party offering the deposition; or (C) that the witness is unable to attend or testify because of age, illness, infirmity, or imprisonment; or (D) the party offering the deposition has been unable to procure the attendance of the witness by subpoena; or (E) upon application and notice, that such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the interest of justice and with due regard to the importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in open court, to allow the deposition to be used. Ark. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(3) (2008). The record substantiates that Nurse Sexton's video deposition was taken in anticipation of her being out of state at the time of an earlier trial date. When the trial was then continued to a future date, Nelson argues that it was no longer appropriate for the appellees to play Sexton's video deposition in lieu of her testifying in person. Our standard of review on this point is clear. This court will not reverse a circuit judge's decision on the admission or rejection of evidence absent an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Hively v. Edwards, 278 Ark. 435, 646 S.W.2d 688 (1983). At trial, the circuit judge ruled that Nelson's objection to Sexton's video-deposition testimony was untimely and allowed the defendants to present Sexton's deposition testimony to the jury. We conclude that the circuit judge's decision, finding Nelson had waived her Rule 32(a)(3) argument for failing to make a timely objection, was not an abuse of discretion. The first mention of Sexton's video deposition was made by Nelson's counsel in his opening statement on the first day of the trial: Now the nurse that's on duty at that time, [Sexton], her deposition has been taken. We know a lot of things because the lawyers take depositions and know what the witnesses are going to say. Her testimony will be by video, as I recall. After this statement, Nelson's counsel proceeded to describe the anticipated testimony of Sexton in detail, again saying at one point: Now, you'll hear in the nurse's deposition that will be played for you.... Dr. Stubblefield's counsel also mentioned Sexton's video deposition in her opening statement, saying: you'll be able to listen to her video deposition and she'll explain completely what she found. St. Bernards's counsel's opening argument, in addition, referenced Sexton's testimony. Along this same line, at the close of Dr. Stubblefield's case-in-chief, the following colloquy occurred: COUNSEL FOR ST. BERNARDS: Your Honor, my nurse expert will come in, in the morning and then we have the nurse video deposition. THE COURT: Mr. Rodgers [Nelson's counsel] might want to play the entire deposition tomorrow morning, too. COUNSEL FOR ST. BERNARDS: That's fine. THE COURT: You can do it if you want. COUNSEL FOR NELSON: Okay. The court then recessed for the day. The next morning, counsel for St. Bernards presented the testimony of its nurse expert, Connie Ash. During a court recess in the middle of Ms. Ash's testimony, Nelson's counsel first objected to the defense playing Sexton's video deposition to the jury, to which the circuit judge responded: The problem the court has is you could have made that objection on the first day of the trial which was four days ago and then I probably would have granted your objection. But in view of the fact that we've all known that this lady was going to testify by deposition, I'm going toI mean, this late objection is just untimely. We agree that Nelson's objection on this point was untimely. At the very least, Nelson's counsel impliedly agreed to the presentation of Sexton's video testimony as evidenced by his comments at trial preceding his objection. Cf. Goodwin v. Harrison, 300 Ark. 474, 780 S.W.2d 518 (1989) (finding that appellant's actions were consistent with an implied agreement between the parties that depositions would not be used as evidence at trial; thus, appellant had waived the literal wording of Ark. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(3)). Moreover, Nelson cannot show prejudice as a result of the circuit judge's ruling. See, e.g., Bridges v. Ark. Motor Coaches, Ltd. Inc., 256 Ark. 1054, 1057, 511 S.W.2d 651, 653 (1974) ([W]e have often held that error without prejudice will be no ground for reversal.). Nelson's counsel clearly participated in thorough cross-examination of Sexton in the video deposition and had the right to mount any objections during that same deposition. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 32(b) (2008).