Opinion ID: 2635221
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Testimony of Ellison Ancheta

Text: Ellison Ancheta, as supervisor for a DOT traffic services crew, was tasked with installing the Road Floods During Rain signs. He testified that the two signs, one for each direction of travel, were erected on August 7, 1996 and that the sign for the northbound lane was placed at least 600 feet before the spot where Klink's car began its skid. However, Ancheta conceded that he had not personally witnessed the installation of the northbound sign, but had only received oral confirmation from his work crew that it had completed the work, which had been assigned to it on the same day via a written DOT work order; [9] the oral confirmation and the fact that, upon the crew's return, the posts and signs were not present, led Ancheta to conclude that the crew had installed the signs. Ancheta confirmed, however, that the August 7, 1996 work order had called for the sign for northbound traffic to be installed approximately 250 feet farther north than it was, toward the site where the accident occurred, at a location where an intersection ahead sign was already located. Only after the Klink accident did he discover that the sign had, in fact, been installed farther south, when a report on the accident was issued and a state official had notified him that the sign was in the more southern location. He questioned his crew about the misinstallation and was informed that, because the intersection ahead sign was already located at the called-for coordinates, his crew had made a judgment call to install the road floods sign farther south, where Ancheta personally observed it during a site visit following Klink's accident. The Appellants objected to the testimony, arguing that Ancheta had no personal knowledge of the installation or location of the sign until after the accident and, hence, that his testimony, which was elicited to establish the existence and location of the warning sign on the day of the accident, constituted inadmissible hearsay. The circuit court allowed the State to continue its questioning, however, in order further to establish the foundation of Ancheta's knowledge. The circuit court then asked Ancheta to identify on Exhibit 27the diagram of the accident site prepared by Krueper(1) the location where the work order called for the sign to be placed and (2) the location where his crew had actually placed the sign on August 7, 1996. Ancheta then testified, referring to a March 27, 1997 daily maintenance report (DMR) introduced into evidence, that, following Klink's accident, the sign was moved to the second location nearer the east side driveway where it was subsequently observed by Krueper during his site inspection. The circuit court allowed the report into evidence, over the Appellants' counsel's objection that it does not identify the sign that was moved [or] where that sign was located, arguing that [t]here is nothing to show that this document is related in any fashion to the sign which is [the] subject of the inquiry. The circuit court thereafter made the following comments: [T]his is what I'm hearing and I'm going to share this right now with everyone on the record[Ancheta] remembers the accident maybe, not by date or time, but because it caused someone to tell him You got a sign in the wrong place, go out and change it. He went out to look for himself, he saw the sign in the wrong place. He told us where he [had] seen that sign, which is about 250 feet . . . to the right of where [Exhibit 27] ends. Now the only thing that we need to ascertain is the number of feet from the intersection sign to the end of the diagram. And my estimation is about 180 feet. . . . The Appellants further objected to the propriety of Ancheta referring to a work order not in evidence in testifying where the sign was originally installed. The circuit court responded that much of the confusion stemmed from the failure of either party to depose Ancheta prior to trial: [Appellants' counsel:] Well, Your Honor, I'm troubled by the fact that this witness obviously relied on documents for his testimony. . . . They've never been identified in this case up until today. And then they're not produced. And I think that is highly irregular. [The Court:] I don't know what you are talking about. [Appellants' counsel:] The work order that he's referring to for example. . . . [T]hat he looked at to determine the date. That's not in court. We've never seen it. It's never been identified. [The Court:] The point is what? You wanted the work order to determine the date of the accident or something else? [Appellants' counsel:] Well, no. I just think that they have an obligation to bring these documents if this witness is going to testify. . . . [The Court:] Well if we're going to talk about obligations and what we know and don't know then we are going to get to the issue of why [Ancheta]'s deposition was not taken. So I'm not going there. You do what you have to do, but don't mess up the witness, confuse him, confuse me, mess up the facts. Please, we're just trying to get clarity. Ancheta continued his testimony based upon the DMRs and his recollection of pertinent work orders that he had reviewed prior to trial.