Opinion ID: 2360914
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Empty Chair

Text: This court has adhered to the rule that a litigant's failure to produce an available material witness who would be expected to testify in his behalf may allow the fact finder to infer that had the missing witness appeared and testified, his testimony would have been adverse to the litigant's interest. McCall v. Laferriere, 79 R.I. 174, 86 A.2d 46 (1952). The defendants sought the benefit of this principle because of Anderson's failure to call two friends who were present at various times when he went to Friendship's premises. The trial justice refused to informed the jury of the rule in the McCall case. Since McCall was decided, we have stressed that the trier of fact is not compelled to draw the unfavorable inference. Lantini v. Daniels, 104 R.I. 572, 247 A.2d 298 (1968). Within recent months, we recognized that the empty-chair doctrine is to be applied with caution so that as a condition precedent to its invocation, there must be a showing of the missing witness's availability to the person who would be expected to produce the witness; and before the court begins its instructions, the party seeking to gain the benefit of the unfavorable inference must make it known that he is going to ask that the jury be informed as to the thrust of the doctrine. Benevides v. Canario, 111 R.I. 204, 301 A.2d 75 (1973). Furthermore, if the witness is equally accessible to both parties, no inference can spring from the failure of either party to call him. Kean v. C.I.R., 469 F.2d 1183 (9th Cir.1972); 2 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940) § 288, n. 1 at 169. Finally, the inference is not operable where the witness's testimony would be merely cumulative to what has been already adduced at the trial. General Electric Credit Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 437 Pa. 463, 263 A.2d 448 (1970); 2 Wigmore, supra, § 287 at 168. Since the threat of the inference being drawn can invite the possibility of a courtroom full of unnecessary witnesses, the judicious use of discovery procedures can serve to diminish the justification and the need for the inference. McCormick, Evidence (2d ed. 1972) § 272 at 657. When the question of the absence of Anderson's friends arose, the trial justice, in denying defendants' motion that the trial be continued until the friends appeared in court in reply to defendants' summons, suggested to their counsel that they proceed with their evidence and in the meantime issue the necessary process. Anderson's counsel informed the trial justice that he had intended to present the friends as witnesses but changed his mind without informing the defense counsel. However, he offered to give the telephone numbers of the absentees. He explained his change of mind by pointing out to the court that the trial before him was the third time that this matter had been litigated. The suit was instituted originally in the District Court. There, judgment was entered for Anderson. Friendship and Kirshenbaum took an appeal to the Superior Court. The jury returned a verdict for Anderson but gave inconsistent replies to certain written interrogatories. The inconsistency required a retrial which is the trial presently under our review. The friends had testified at each of the other trials at some personal sacrifice and Anderson's counsel informed the court of his belief that subpoenas by his client for a third trial could produce an adverse effect in Anderson's case. It was also shown that the friends' testimony could be classified as cumulative because they were not present at the time of the alleged agreement between Anderson and Kirshenbaum. While they might testify as to the taking of the keys or the impounding of the car, there was no dispute that these two incidents did in fact occur. The friends could not testify as to the existence of the agreement. We believe the record shows quite clearly that Anderson's friends were as accessible for a summons to be served by defendants as process served by Anderson; that their testimony was purely cumulative; and that their absence from the courtroom was understandable. There was no error in refusing defendants' request for instructions relating to the so-called empty-chair doctrine.