Opinion ID: 1852042
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Businesses

Text: New Plan argues that the trial court erred in overruling New Plan's objection concerning testimony regarding the pecuniary status of New Plan because the evidence is irrelevant and substantially more prejudicial than probative. New Plan specifically argues that the trial court erred in allowing evidence of the pecuniary status of New Plan. At trial, Morgan's attorney read from Bosco's deposition: `Q: Does [New Plan] have any other businesses other than owning and operating and managing apartment buildings?' [Defense counsel objects at trial]: Judge we would object to that question not being relevant to this issue, what other businesses they have. THE COURT: Was there an objection at the time? [Defense counsel]: No, sir, there was not. THE COURT: Overruled. `A: We also own and operate the shopping centers and we do' New Plan argues that, from the above question and answer read from Bosco's deposition, the jury learned that New Plan, in addition to owning the apartment complex which was the subject of the lawsuit, also owns and operates other apartment complexes, copying centers and office space. This evidence could serve no other purpose but to prejudice the jury in its attempt to assess liability and, most importantly damages in this matter. Brief, p. 18. This Court has stated: We will not reverse a judgment `unless... the error complained of has probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the parties.' Rule 45, [Ala.] R.App. P.; Bianco v. Graham, 268 Ala. 385, 388, 106 So.2d 655, 657 (1958). The appellant bears the burden of proof on this issue. Roubicek v. Roubicek, 246 Ala. 442, 21 So.2d 244 (1945). This standard, which requires more than an allegation of `some possibility that the jury could get some adverse thought,' has not been met in this case. Atkins v. Lee, 603 So.2d 937, 946 (Ala. 1992). Rule 32(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., reads: Objections to Admissibility. Subject to the provisions of subdivision (d)(3) of this rule, objection may be made at the trial or hearing to receiving in evidence any deposition or part thereof for any reason which would require the exclusion of the evidence if the witness were then present and testifying. Rule 32(d)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P., reads, in pertinent part: (3) As to Taking of Deposition. (A) Objections to the competency of a witness or to the competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony are not waived by failure to make them before or during the taking of the deposition, unless the ground of the objection is one which might have been obviated or removed if presented at that time. Thus, the trial court erred in overruling the objection of New Plan on the ground that New Plan did not make the objection during Bosco's deposition. However, this case is different from the cases cited by New Plan in that Morgan's attorney did not during his closing argument inject the wealth of New Plan on the issues of liability or damages. New Plan has not shown that the single reference to New Plan's owning shopping centers substantially prejudiced its right to a fair trial. Thus, the error committed by the trial court is harmless error. Rule 45, Ala. R.App. P.