Opinion ID: 1172266
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Evidence Relating to Post-Incident Activity and the 1992 Blazer

Text: After ANI repurchased the 1992 Blazer from John Denis, it consigned the vehicle to Reliable Auto Sales. While the Blazer was in Reliable's used car lot, the words salvage only were written on a buyer's guide in the Blazer's window. The court denied ANI's motion to exclude evidence relating to post-incident conduct. ANI argues that the evidence of the salvage only sign should have been excluded under Evidence Rules 402, 403, 404, 405, and 407. [19] ANI claimed below that Evidence Rule 404 barred admission of the buyer's guide. ANI's motion anticipated that the State would proffer evidence that ANI did not issue a warning or otherwise recall the vehicle. ANI's motion cited a case holding that post-accident conduct of failing to recall a product was inadmissible under Evidence Rules 404 and 405 to show actions in conformity with character. American Nat'l Watermattress Corp. v. Manville, 642 P.2d 1330, 1336 (Alaska 1982) (holding that the error was harmless). The State inferred that ANI or its agent, Reliable Auto, had written salvage only on the vehicle, permitting the jury to find that ANI or its agent admitted the vehicle was unsafe. The evidence was that it was unknown who wrote those words, but the buyer's guide was inside the vehicle and was not accessible to many persons. The inference the State draws is not unreasonable, and thus this evidence is probative. Apparently ANI asserted throughout trial that there was nothing wrong with the Blazer even after the Denises had returned the truck to ANI. Evidence that it was being sold only for salvage would go to the credibility of ANI's witnesses. It was consequently not impermissible character evidence. See Alaska R. Evid. 404, 405. Finally, any possible error was harmless. The jury ultimately found that ANI committed unfair or deceptive acts in: failing to conduct a reasonable pre-sale inspection of the Blazer; selling it to the Denises without disclosing that it had been in an accident; misrepresenting that it had been privately owned and had not been a rental car; and representing that it had remaining factory warranty coverage. The buyer's guide may be relevant but does not seem prejudicial to ANI on any of these issues. Admission of the evidence was certainly not inconsistent with substantial justice under Civil Rule 61 such that reversal would be warranted. Alaska R. Civ. P. 61 (harmless error). ANI now relies on Evidence Rules 402, 403, and 407, but it did not rely on those rules in the superior court. Issues not raised in the court below are ordinarily considered waived and will not be considered on appeal, except where plain error has been committed. In re L.A.M., 727 P.2d 1057, 1059 (Alaska 1986). Plain error exists where an obvious mistake has been made which creates a high likelihood that injustice has resulted. Miller v. Sears, 636 P.2d 1183, 1189 (Alaska 1981). ANI has not demonstrated that admission of this evidence resulted in any injustice. [20]