Opinion ID: 2750180
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Letter from Sister McKillop

Text: The plaintiffs also argue that the letter from the then-President of Salve Regina College, Sister Lucille McKillop, should not have been excluded from evidence. Written on October 7, 7 This is especially true considering plaintiffs did not attempt to impeach their witness with a prior inconsistent statement or otherwise seek to treat the witness as adverse. See R.I. R. Evid. 607; State v. Vargas, 420 A.2d 809, 812 (R.I. 1980) (“[A] party who is surprised by his own witness’s testimony may be permitted, in the discretion of the trial justice, to confront the witness with prior inconsistent statements.”). - 15 - 1987, the letter was addressed to the then-City Manager of Newport and discussed the death of a Salve student on the Cliff Walk and the writer’s belief that fencing was needed in certain areas along the Cliff Walk. The trial justice refused to admit the document as a full exhibit, finding that the letter was hearsay and that plaintiffs had not established sufficient similarity between the events described in the letter and the case at bar to constitute notice to the state. Here, the trial justice explained his misgivings with the letter being offered as some type of notice to the state. He noted that the letter was written more than a decade prior to Simcha’s fall and that it was addressed to the city instead of the state. Additionally, the trial justice found that plaintiffs had not established sufficient similarity in time, location, condition, or circumstances between the incident discussed in the letter and Simcha’s fall. Given the thoroughness of the grounds supporting his decision, we cannot say that the trial justice abused his discretion in excluding the contents of the letter from evidence.