Opinion ID: 2431337
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: officer opinion

Text: At trial, Officer Clyde Martin testified that he had been trained in accident investigation and that he had investigated approximately one hundred accidents a year. He then testified on direct examination by appellee Cheryl Stansell's attorney regarding contributing factors to the accident: Q. Do you have contributing factors to Mrs. Lawson? A. On Mrs. Lawson I have two contributing factors. One was the wrong side of the road as a result of crossing the median and failure to maintain control of the vehicle. There was no objection to this testimony. Later, on cross-examination by Patricia Lawson's attorney, Officer Martin was asked about the bridge as a contributing factor: Q. In your opinion, Officer Martin, was the bridge a contributing factor to this accident? MR. COX: Your Honor, I am going to object. There is no foundation and it is expression of an opinion. There is not sufficient foundation. MR. ROBINSON: Your Honor, under Rule 702 his knowledge, experience and training help determine a fact in issue that goes to causation and not the ultimate issue of negligence. My asking Officer Martin's opinion does not mandate a legal conclusion. THE COURT: I'm going to allow him to testify over your objection as to the bridge. He has testified to his memory of it. Your objection will be noted, Mr. Cox. Ask the question again. Q. [Mr. Robinson continuing:] In your opinion, sir, was the bridge a contributing factor to this accident?
Q. The drop off, the rise in the bridge and the drop off areas, sir. A. Yes, sir, I would say it was one of many contributing factors. Under subsequent questioning by Muskogee Bridge, Officer Martin testified that he did not list the bridge construction as a contributing factor in his report and could not say what caused Mrs. Lawson to lose control of her vehicle. He added under cross examination by Lawson that the drop-off could have been a contributing factor. But on re-cross-examination by Muskogee Bridge, he admitted that he could only say it was a possible cause of the accident. The next day, the circuit court reconsidered its previous ruling, admitting it had erred, and admonished the jury not to consider Officer Martin's testimony on contributing factors. The court then struck the testimony. Muskogee Bridge asked for a mistrial, but the motion was denied. The decision to grant a mistrial lies within the discretion of the trial court. Schroeder v. Johnson, 234 Ark. 443, 352 S.W.2d 570 (1962). Here, the circuit court, on the following day, admitted that it had erred in allowing Officer Martin to testify regarding contributing factors to the accident. We agree that this was error. The burden, however, is on the appellant to demonstrate that the circuit court committed prejudicial error. Error which does not result in prejudice is not reversible. Robinson v. Abbott, 292 Ark. 630, 731 S.W.2d 782 (1987). Muskogee Bridge has not demonstrated that it was prejudiced. Officer Martin, though initially giving an opinion on contributing factors, later hedged in his testimony and said he could not say that the bridge construction was a cause of the accident. It was only a possible factor. Furthermore, the circuit court admonished the jury not to consider his testimony on contributing factors. Had the police officer been more demonstrative in assessing blame and the court not admonished the jury, our attitude would be different. But here the circuit court made the appropriate decision to admonish the jury and go forward with the trial.