Opinion ID: 1503908
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Deletion of Part of Pre-trial Statement.

Text: Prior to the trial of this case, the plaintiff's witness, Sergeant Leo M. Moore, Jr., had made a signed statement in which he had said, among other things: Mrs. Brown, after noting the floor was slippery, said she hoped the insurance on the church was paid up. Father made a remark about not worrying about it. (The emphasis added indicates the parts deleted). During the course of the trial, the defendant, desiring to use the statement to impeach the credibility of the witness, applied to the court for permission, which was granted over the objection of the plaintiff, to delete certain words (above emphasized), particularly the reference to the word insurance, and to insert certain other words. After the deletion and insertion had been made the two sentences referred to read: Mrs. Brown made a remark that the floor was slippery. Father made a remark about not worrying about it. (The emphasis added indicates the part inserted). The witness, when testifying on direct examination, had made no mention of insurance. It might be argued that the deletion favored the plaintiff in that the altered statement indicated that the priest had indirectly admitted liability, and that she need not worry about compensation for her injuries. However, the plaintiff, among other assigned reasons, insists that the alteration of the grammatical structure of the first sentence materially changed the meaning of what the witness had said in a part of the statement which not only referred to insurance but also, indirectly, to certain relevant facts which were clearly admissible. On the other hand, the defendant contends that the deletions were harmless. On the issue of whether it is proper to delete a reference to insurance from a pre-trial statement, written or oral, or a contract, memorandum or other paper writing, the cases and law writers tend to favor the deletion of the word on the ground of irrelevancy even though the exclusion might possibly distort slightly the meaning of the phrase in which it was used. A deletion is usually preferred in order to avoid the possible prejudicial effect the reference to insurance might have on a jury if the word was not deleted. See Jones v. Gilland, 137 Cal. App.2d 486, 290 P.2d 329 (1955); Sapp v. Key, 287 S.W.2d 775 (Mo. 1956); Anderson v. Enfield, 244 Minn. 474, 70 N.W.2d 409 (1955); Capozi v. Hearst Publishing Co., 371 Pa. 503, 92 A.2d 177 (1952); Derrick v. Rock, 218 Ark. 339, 236 S.W.2d 726 (1951); Wilbur v. Tourangeau, 116 Vt. 199, 71 A.2d 565 (1950); Socony Vacuum Oil Co. v. Marvin, 313 Mich. 528, 21 N.W.2d 841 (1946); Jeddeloh v. Hockenhull, 219 Minn. 541, 18 N.W.2d 582 (1945); Kuhn v. Kjose, 216 Iowa 36, 248 N.W. 230 (1933); McCormick, Evidence (1954), § 56; 7 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940), § 2113(a). But compare Rodgers v. Ashley, 207 F.2d 534 (3d Cir., 1953); Fleischman v. City of Reading, 388 Pa. 183, 130 A.2d 429 (1957); Vanni v. Cloutier, 100 N.H. 272, 124 A.2d 204 (1956); Guarnaccia v. Wiecenski, 130 Conn. 20, 31 A.2d 464 (1943); and especially the Maryland cases of Rhinehart v. Lemmon, 181 Md. 663, 29 A.2d 279 (1942), and Takoma Park Bank v. Abbott, 179 Md. 249, 19 A.2d 169 (1941), which did not, however, involve the exact point now under consideration. In the Rhinehart case, supra, even though a farm bureau sign on an automobile seen at the scene of the accident carried a suggestion of insurance, it was held that: [R]eference to    [the sign] as a mark distinguishing the car would be relevant and unobjectionable. A suggestion of the possession of insurance is not to be avoided at the cost of suppressing evidence material to the establishment of the cause of the accident and liability of the defendant sued for damages. This Court has often recognized that when the reference to insurance is made by the defendant, he is in no position to move for a mistrial. International Co. v. Clark, 147 Md. 34, 127 A. 647 (1925); Note, 5 Md. L. Rev. 422 (1941). In the Takoma Park Bank case, supra, an action against a bank by the lessees of a safe deposit box for the loss of the contents of the box, the Court held that it was proper for the trial court to admit a statement made by the vice-president of the bank that the plaintiff had nothing to worry about since the bank was protected by insurance. At p. 265, we said: It will be noted that the defendant itself, in mentioning insurance, first injected it into the case. On no grounds recognized by reason or justice should it now be heard to complain because its statement went before the jury when in the first instance    [defendant] suggested it as an answer to the plaintiff's loss.    [Defendant], therefore, having injected insurance apparently as its reason and the only reason for the relaxation of due diligence in protecting the plaintiff's property is certainly not injured by this ruling. The Maryland cases previously referred to are not directly in point since the issue here is whether the defendant has a right to delete a reference to insurance before any mention of insurance is made at the trial. Those cases involved only situations where the defendant had already introduced evidence of insurance and then sought a mistrial. However, it should not be overlooked that the Takoma Park Bank case, supra, is also authority to hold that the remark made by the priest relative to not worrying about it could be construed as an excuse for relaxation of care and diligence, and therefore relevant to the issues in the instant case. At p. 265, we also said: It cannot be said that the statement made by the executive vice-president in answer to appellee's charges of the bank's neglect in failing to protect his property would not to some extent be relevant as indicating to reasonable minds an excuse on the bank's part for a relaxation of care, diligence and responsibility, because undoubtedly it was relevant to the very issue in the case. See also Olson v. Sharpe, 36 Tenn. App. 557, 259 S.W.2d 867 (1953), in which it was held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the plaintiff to introduce a certificate of indemnity insurance for the purpose of showing the existence of a master-servant relationship, which was one of the issues in the case. The statement in McCormick, Evidence (1954), § 168, is also pertinent: [E]vidence of the fact of    insurance is inadmissible unless it falls within some one of a group of exceptional situations. In these situations presumably the trial judge's discretionary power to exclude could still be invoked if he should consider that the need for and value of the evidence were outweighed by its likelihood of misuse by the jury. What are those exceptions? [T]he admission of a party bearing on negligence or damages may include a reference to the fact of insurance which cannot be severed without substantially lessening the evidential value of the admission. In a case such as this  where the defendant desires to introduce a signed statement into the evidence, but without the reference therein to insurance, for the purpose of impeaching a witness  and where the deletion of the phrase in which the reference appears materially changes, in one way or another, the meaning of what the witness has said in the statement as to facts which are relevant and clearly admissible, as the statement in this case does  we hold that the defendant must elect between an introduction of the whole statement without alteration or none of it. Where the deletion would produce a substantial alteration of the meaning of the phrase in which the reference to insurance was used, the exclusion should not be permitted.