Opinion ID: 2360235
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Clauser's testimony

Text: The trial judge also abused her discretion by granting Thompson's Motion for a New Trial on the alternative ground that Clauser's testimony was misleading, confusing, and prejudicial. Because the trial judge wrote one sentence in her letter opinion on this issue, it is difficult to determine on what basis she concluded that Clauser's testimony caused confusion or unfair prejudice that clearly affected the jury's verdict. [21] We interpret her one explanatory sentence to mean that because Clauser testified to something not within his written opinion (the condition of the operating deck and the supply pipe), it somehow created an injustice requiring a new trial. The test, however, is manifest injustice. How Clauser's testimony may have created confusion or prejudice rising to manifest injustice is neither present in the trial judge's post trial opinion nor evident in the record. While Clauser's testimony about the replacement deck and the supply pipe may have been unexpected, it responded to equally unexpected testimony by Mark Thompson. Mark Thompson testified that when the new operating deck was installed, a hole was cut for the upright pipe and the new operating deck was simply placed over the old decking. Based on photographs that Clauser saw, Mark Thompson's testimony described the impossible. Clauser simply discussed why the pictures showed that impossibility and explained that whoever installed the operating deck would have had to remove the supply pipe below the decking. In doing so, that person would have been able to see the condition of both the supply pipe below the decking, and of the upright pipe above the decking. We cannot understand what unfair prejudice or confusion could have resulted from this testimony and the trial judge has articulated none. Moreover, though the trial judge suggests that this testimony was somehow prejudicial, we note that it was Thompson's trial counsel who on cross solicited Clauser's opinion that contradicted Mark Thompson's testimony about the replacement operating deck. [22] We also note that Thompson's counsel had an opportunity to ask Clauser if he personally observed the condition of the replacement deck and supply pipe or if his opinion was based solely on observing pictures and others' testimony. In sum, we cannot accept the trial judge's unsupported conclusory statement that Clauser's testimony was highly prejudicial, not very probative, and very confusing. The record suggests that Clauser is a highly qualified expert who reviewed all of the relevant information in this case. His testimony certainly constitutes credible evidence. After careful review of Clauser's testimony, we find nothing to suggest that the jury's verdict clearly constitutes a manifest injustice arising from unfair prejudice or confusion resulting from that testimony.