Opinion ID: 2534119
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Exclusion of Evidence of the Payment of the Traffic Citation

Text: Proctor was cited for failure to yield and paid the citation by check. The district court ruled that payment of the citation was inadmissible, relying on LaRue v. Archer, 130 Idaho 267, 939 P.2d 586 (1997), decided by the Court of Appeals. This Court has not decided the issue. Idaho Infraction Rule 6(a) provides in part that [a]ny person charged with an infraction by a citation may enter an admission by paying the fixed penalty by mail. Payment of the fixed penalty shall constitute an admission of the charge.  I.I.R. 6(a)(2004) (emphasis added). Idaho Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A) provides that a statement made by a party in either an individual or representative capacity is not considered hearsay [1] and is admissible regardless of a declarant's availability at trial. I.R.E. 801(d)(2)(A)(2004). A statement includes nonverbal conduct where the conduct is intended as an assertion. I.R.E. 801(a)(2004). The Court of Appeals has dealt with the admissibility of evidence relating to a guilty plea to a traffic charge in a civil case involving the same incident. LaRue, 130 Idaho 267, 939 P.2d 586; Beale v. Speck, 127 Idaho 521, 903 P.2d 110 (Ct.App.1995). In Beale, the Court of Appeals held that, [e]vidence of a party's plea of guilty to a traffic infraction is admissible against that party in a subsequent civil proceeding arising from the same occurrence as an admission by a party-opponent. Beale, 127 Idaho at 530, 903 P.2d at 119. The Court of Appeals again addressed the issue of admissibility of guilty pleas as reflected in traffic infractions in civil trials of the same incident in LaRue, determining the following: We . . . hold that the admission resulting from the payment of a traffic citation for an infraction, without appearing in court and entering a plea of guilty, is the functional equivalent of a plea of nolo contendere .... a plea of nolo contendere is inadmissible under Idaho Rule of Evidence 410(a)(2). LaRue, 130 Idaho at 270, 939 P.2d 586, 589 (emphasis added). A plea of nolo contendere is considered the functional equivalent of a guilty plea in the criminal context. Black's Law Dictionary, 1048 (6th Ed.1990). I.R.E. 410(a)(2) states that a plea of nolo contendere is inadmissible in a civil trial. I.R.E. 410(a)(2). LaRue held that I.I.R. 6(a) was inapplicable because the defendant mailed in payment of the fine and did not include a copy of the citation. LaRue, 130 Idaho at 270, 939 P.2d at 589. According to LaRue, the record in this case does not include the traffic citation. Therefore we are unable to determine whether [defendant] signed a written entry of admission at the time payment was tendered pursuant to Idaho Infraction Rule 6(a). Id. In this case Proctor mailed the check without a copy of the citation included. LaRue further distinguished Beale on the basis the defendant in Beale had appeared in court and entered a plea of guilty to the traffic charge. Id. LaRue reasoned that the payment of a traffic citation was neither a guilty plea nor an express acknowledgment of guilt and is inadmissible in a civil trial. Id. (citing Briggeman v. Albert, 322 Md. 133, 586 A.2d 15 (1991); Walker v. Forrester, 764 P.2d 1337 (Okla.1988)). The district court relied on LaRue in making its decision to exclude the evidence of payment of the citation. Cases exist from other jurisdictions supporting either the admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence of the payment of a traffic citation. However, the question in Idaho is answered by reference to I.I.R. 6(a) which provides that, [p]ayment of a fixed penalty shall constitute an admission to the charge, and I.R.E. 804(b)(3), which provides that a statement by a party which may subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability is admissible at trial. I.I.R. 6(a); I.R.E. 804(b)(3). Payment under I.I.R. 6(a) constitutes an admission of guilt and is likewise a statement against interest. The evidence of payment should have been admitted. In this case the jury apportioned the negligence of the parties equally. A shift of a single percentage point in favor of Kuhn would have meant some recovery instead of none. The error in excluding the evidence cannot be considered harmless.