Opinion ID: 1735876
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The testimony about grabbing and crying.

Text: There was some testimony at the trial by defendant and two of his companions indicating that after the collision plaintiff Paul Krez took defendant by the arm, or grabbed his arm or his wrist, and took him into the restaurant. Mr. Krez testified that defendant acted like a little gentleman. Near the end of the trial defendant offered as admissions against interest a number of excerpts from Mr. Krez' deposition, including the following, which was received in evidence over plaintiffs' objection: Q. Did you grab him by the arm? A. No, I never touched the boy. No, no. He stood still like a gentleman. It is urged that this was not an admission against interest and was not relevant. We need not decide whether this was an admission against interest. It was cumulative, duplicated by Mr. Krez' testimony at the trial, and was essentially undisputed. Nuckols v. Andrews Investment Co., Mo.App., 364 S.W.2d 128, 139. In any event, his denial that he grabbed the boy could only have benefited, and could not have damaged, plaintiffs' case in the eyes of the jury. Over plaintiffs' objection the court permitted cross-examination of Mrs. Krez to inquire whether defendant was crying there at the scene. When permitted to answer she answered in the negative. Thereupon counsel for defendant refreshed her memory by calling her attention to a statement made in her deposition, indicating that after the boy was taken back to Ruggeri's and placed on a chair he was crying. Mrs. Krez then remembered. It is urged that this had no relevance to the issues, would serve only to engender sympathy for the 14-year-old boy, and was prejudicial. This testimony was immaterial and irrelevant but its improper admission in evidence is not sufficient to convict the trial court of an abuse of discretion requiring a reversal of the judgment. It is unlikely and we are not convinced that this altogether mild evidence entered into or occasioned the defendant's verdict. The judgment is affirmed. WELBORN and HIGGINS, CC., concur. concurs.