Opinion ID: 20073
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ms. Reilly’s Unwillingness to File Suit

Text: Spring claims that the district court erred when it permitted the nursing home to read into evidence statements from Ms. Reilly’s deposition regarding her unwillingness to file a lawsuit against the nursing home. Spring claims that the evidence was unduly prejudicial. At trial, the district court ruled that Ms. Reilly’s deposition testimony regarding her unwillingness to sue the nursing home was relevant to show her state of mind and the quantum of harm. Under Federal Rules of Evidence 403, relevant evidence may nonetheless be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. Whether evidence is admissible is a question within the sound discretion of the trial court. [T]he trial judge has wide discretion [in making a Rule 403 determination and] . . . the appellate court will not reverse unless the trial [court] has clearly abused its discretion. Buford v. Howe, 10 F.3d 1184, 1189 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Wright v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 580 F.2d 809, 810 (5th Cir.1978)). In the instant case, the plaintiff’s claim for damages included physical injury, humiliation, and mental anguish. As such, the Ms. Reilly’s unwillingness to proceed with the lawsuit is probative to the quantum of damages she allegedly suffered. Although, the testimony is prejudicial to the plaintiff’s case, the mere fact that evidence is prejudicial is insufficient to exclude its admissibility under Rule 403. In order to trump the presumption of admissibility of relevant evidence under Rule 403, the prejudicial nature of the evidence must be unfair and the prejudice must substantially outweigh the evidence’s probative value. Because Spring does not overcome the presumption of admissibility under Rule 403, the district court did not abuse its discretion. 6