Opinion ID: 1801234
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Reopen Case

Text: After both parties had presented their cases and rested, but before closing arguments and the judge's oral charge were given, the plaintiff moved to reopen her case. Hancock's attorneys claimed that a newly discovered witness had contacted them with vital information about statements allegedly made by the police officers in her presence, regarding the use of the police cruiser's blue light during the emergency run. The trial court heard argument on the motion to reopen the case outside the presence of the jury. The prospective witness was a nurse on duty in the Montgomery Baptist Hospital emergency room on the evening of the accident. The plaintiff asserted that the nurse would testify about certain comments she overheard between the two police officers involved in the accident. She allegedly would have testified that the officers were distraught and that at least one of them had expressed remorse at having killed that child (referring to the minor plaintiff, Cynthia Hancock). Further, the newly discovered witness allegedly was willing to testify that the same officer had stated that the blue light on the police vehicle was not operating when the accident occurred. The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion to reopen the case. A court in Alabama may, at its discretion, reopen a case, when it appears to be necessary to the due administration of justice. Code 1975, § 6-8-103. Both parties recognize that Alabama has for many years deferred to the sound discretion of the trial court in matters of this nature. Kennedy v. Nelson, 37 Ala.App. 484, 487, 70 So.2d 822, 825 (Ala.Ct.App.1954); State v. Alabama Public Service Commission, 293 Ala. 553, 562, 307 So.2d 521, 528 (1975). During the colloquy between the plaintiff's counsel and the trial judge, the trial judge stated: THE COURT: Yes. I think thatI need to know what you are asking for. You bring this to the attention of the Court, but I have got to think about all the parties in the case. We have had depositions cutoff dates that go way back to the fall. We have continued the case one time because the Plaintiff was in the hospital. We continued it another time because you were in the hospital. There has got to be some sort of consideration given both to her and all of these other people. I just do not see that it is fair at all to ask them to respond to this on the very, very short notice that you have had, unless they agree to it, and I am not saying that I would do it, but I think it would be an awful imposition on this Court, and on the parties. But, the most I would consider is just starting it all over Monday and just retrying it. The Court also noted: THE COURT: We have gone through a thorough and complete discovery process in this case, and such as this just makes a mockery out of Rule 26 and the rest of the rules of what somebody is supposed to be faced with, and I can't possibly just ignore the Rules of Procedure or just the rules of elementary fair play. The court, in effect held that to reopen the case to allow the nurse to testify at such a late point in the trial, in view of the totality of the circumstances, would be unfair. The trial court also denied plaintiff's motion for mistrial and a motion to allow the nurse to testify as a rebuttal witness. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The plaintiff subsequently moved for a new trial on the ground that newly discovered evidence existed. The granting or denying of a new trial on this ground also rests largely within the trial court's discretion. Gilmer v. Salter, 285 Ala. 671, 676, 235 So.2d 813, 817 (1970); Tankersley v. Tankersley, 270 Ala. 571, 574, 120 So.2d 744, 746 (1960). Alabama codifies the grounds for a new trial and included in that enumeration is: [n]ewly discovered evidence, material for the party applying, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial. Code 1975, § 12-13-11(7). (Emphasis added.) See Forest Investment Corporation v. Commercial Credit Corporation, 271 Ala. 8, 12, 122 So.2d 131, 135 (1960); Morris v. Yancey, 272 Ala. 549, 552, 132 So.2d 754 (1961); Sunnyland Foods, Inc. v. Catrett, 395 So.2d 1005, 1009 (Ala.Civ.App.1980). The accident occurred four years before the trial commenced. We have reviewed the record and hold that the trial judge could have determined that with reasonable diligence, the plaintiff, prior to trial, could have discovered what the nurse allegedly overheard on the evening of the accident; therefore, under the operative facts of this case, the trial judge was authorized to find that the nurse was not a newly discovered witness. Since the accident the nurse has continuously worked at Baptist Hospital and has been available for questioning. The liberal discovery rules provide parties the opportunity to locate witnesses like the nurse. Without a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion, this Court, on appeal, will not order a new trial. Blevins v. Pruitt, 56 Ala.App. 76, 78, 319 So.2d 275, 276 (Ala.Civ.App.1975). We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.