Opinion ID: 1172266
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of ANI's Motion to Sever

Text: Civil Rule 18(a) provides that [a] party asserting a claim . .. may join ... as many claims either legal or equitable or both as the party has against an opposing party. Alaska R. Civ. P. 18(a). Civil Rule 42(b), however, provides that a court may order a separate trial of any claim in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy. Alaska R. Civ. P. 42(b). ANI moved to sever the eight claims and for separate trial of each claim, arguing that evidence offered about any one transaction would be inadmissible character evidence under Evidence Rule 404 with respect to the other transactions. [14] The superior court denied the motion, and ANI appeals. [15] Evidence Rule 404(b)(1) provides: Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible if the sole purpose for offering the evidence is to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith. It is, however, admissible for other purposes, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. ANI's argument fails for several reasons. First, the evidence of any given transaction was not offered for the sole purpose of showing that ANI acted in conformity with some bad character trait. Evidence relating to the sale of the 1991 Escort to the McCormicks, for example, was offered to show that ANI sold the Escort in violation of AS 45.50.471. Second, any prejudice to ANI was limited by Jury Instruction 18, which read: The state has alleged several different violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act in connection with each of eight transactions. You are to decide whether Anchorage Nissan committed each violation claimed on its own merits, separately from the other violations claimed. Thus, if you find that it is more likely than not that Anchorage Nissan, Inc. committed any specific violation in connection with any of the eight transactions, you must find that Anchorage Nissan committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice as to that specific violation. If you do not find that it is more likely than not that a specific violation occurred, then you must find that Anchorage Nissan, Inc. did not commit a deceptive act or practice with regard to that particular claim. If you find that Anchorage Nissan, Inc. committed one or more violations, you may not assume that it is more likely that Anchorage Nissan, Inc. committed other violations. This is called propensity evidence, and it is forbidden under Alaska law. When deciding a particular claim, however, you may consider evidence relating to other violations to decide whether Anchorage Nissan, Inc. had any specific intent, plan, or motive in connection with the particular transaction under consideration. Third, the primary relief sought by the State was a permanent injunction preventing ANI from continuing any deceptive practices. The civil fines were $64,000, and these were determined by the trial judge, not the jury. This is not a case in which inflammatory propensity evidence caused an excessive punitive damage award. For these reasons, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying ANI's motion to sever. [16]