Opinion ID: 1809297
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Impeachment of Credeur

Text: J.B. Hunt argues that the court abused its discretion in limiting its cross-examination of Credeur on the issue of his previous driving record and qualifications. J.B. Hunt asserted at trial that it could show past misrepresentations by Credeur about his driving record and asserted two grounds for the admissibility of these alleged misrepresentations: (1) the issue of Credeur's credibility and (2) the issue of future lost wages.
J.B. Hunt insists that because the only testimony that the tractor-trailer that allegedly caused the accident was a J.B. Hunt motor vehicle came from Credeur, Credeur's credibility was at issue and was at issue in such a way that the judge's limitations on impeachment constituted reversible error. The proffered impeachment evidence, however, would have impeached Credeur's character by a showing of specific bad acts, none of which was related to the accident on January 29, 1991, and none of which tended to show bias against J.B. Hunt. The trial court ruled that the proffered evidence concerned a collateral matter; the court refused to allow J.B. Hunt to impeach Credeur with a prior inconsistent statement that the court concluded did not concern a material element in the case. This Court has stated: The extent of cross-examination on irrelevant facts, for the purpose of testing bias or credibility of the witness' testimony is a matter resting largely in the discretion of the trial court, and his ruling will not be disturbed unless it appears that he has abused his discretion to the prejudice of the complaining party. Nelson v. Johnson, 264 Ala. 422, 427, 88 So.2d 358, 362 (1956). See also Watson v. City of Florala, 420 So.2d 55 (Ala.1982). A witness may not be cross-examined for impeachment as to specific acts of misconduct by him which have no relevancy except as tending to show that he is a person of bad character as a whole or with respect to truth and veracity. C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 140.01(10) (4th ed.1991). J.B. Hunt has shown no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge.
As an alternative ground for admissibility, J.B. Hunt argues that the proffered impeachment evidence was relevant to Credeur's claim for damages for future lost wages. J.B. Hunt attempted to show that Credeur, on his employment application for Sam Broussard Trucking Company, had failed to list his most recent employer, M.S. Carriers. This was significant, argued J.B. Hunt, because Credeur, it alleged, had been terminated from M.S. Carriers for drinking on the job and for his involvement in a number of accidents. Additionally, J.B. Hunt attempted to question Credeur about previous traffic violations and about whether he had had his driver's license suspended or revoked. In arguing to have this evidence admitted, counsel for J.B. Hunt told the judge: Judge, he will say he can't get a job driving a truck because of his limitation. He can't get a job driving a truck because of his driving record. On appeal, J.B. Hunt refers to federal regulations that would prohibit a person with the driving history J.B. Hunt says Credeur has from driving a commercial vehicle. In this way, J.B. Hunt attempts to show that the driving history is relevant to the issue of future lost wages. Credeur points out that, at trial, J.B. Hunt cited no statutes and pointed to no evidence to support its assertion that Credeur's alleged driving record would forever preclude him from driving a truck in the future. Credeur also refers to the following exchange that occurred just after J.B. Hunt's counsel made the statement quoted above: The Court: His ability to drive a truck is not in issue. Mr. Luther [counsel for J.B. Hunt]: They're claiming lost future wages because he can't come back to truck driving. Mr. Hedge [counsel for Credeur]: But that's undisputed he can't go back to truck driving because a medical doctor said he can't. That is undisputed testimony. If they wanted to dispute that, they should have got their doctor to come down here and testify otherwise. The Court: Do you have any other experts saying otherwise? By that I mean do you say, `No, this man is totally unemployed because I'm an expert in the freight carrying business and this guy is totally unemployed because of his past records'? Mr. Luther: I have not identified such an expert, Your Honor. . . . . The Court: So, unless it is a prior inconsistent statement concerning a material element of the case, I'm not going to allow prior false statements. Mr. Luther: Regarding his driving record? The Court: Regarding his driving record.... Again, J.B. Hunt has shown no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in disallowing this cross-examination.