Opinion ID: 2557294
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: 1998 Account Transcript

Text: Smyjunas next contends that the trial court erred when it allowed J & M, over his objection, to admit evidence of his 1998 account transcript from the Internal Revenue Service. This account transcript showed that for the year 1998, the joint gross income for Smyjunas and his wife was $2,018,515. Smyjunas's 1999 account transcript, which was also admitted into evidence, showed that in 1999, he and his wife had gross income of $362,611. Smyjunas asserts that it was error to admit evidence of his 1998 account transcript because it had no probative value whatsoever and caused him substantial prejudice. He argues that [i]t is entirely probabl[e] that a juror could have improperly factored in the seemingly very high income earned by ... Smyjunas and his wife in 1998 to determine that he was able, and therefore should, pay [J & M's] judgment individually. The admissibility of evidence is generally within the discretion of the trial court, and we will uphold its rulings unless the exercise of its discretion is unsustainable. N.H. Ball Bearings v. Jackson, 158 N.H. 421, 431, 969 A.2d 351 (2009). To be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Id. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. N.H. R. Ev. 401. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. N.H. R. Ev. 403. A trial judge is granted broad discretion when balancing the probative value of evidence against the possible prejudice resulting from its admission. McLaughlin v. Fisher Eng'g, 150 N.H. 195, 199, 834 A.2d 258 (2003) (quotation and brackets omitted). Accordingly, we will uphold the trial court's decision to admit the 1998 account transcript unless Smyjunas demonstrates that this decision was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case. See id. We hold that the trial court sustainably exercised its discretion when it allowed J & M to admit evidence of Smyjunas's 1998 account transcript. The trial court reasonably found that this evidence had a tendency to prove a fact that was of consequence. N.H. R. Ev. 401. Specifically, Smyjunas's 1998 account transcript had a tendency to show that Gorham Supermarket substantially depleted its assets soon after J & M notified Smyjunas in 1997 about its easement claim. This fact, if proved, was, in turn, central to J & M's piercing the corporate veil claim. The trial court also reasonably determined that the probative value of this evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice from its admission. Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if its primary purpose or effect is to appeal to a jury's sympathies, arouse its sense of horror, provoke its instinct to punish, or trigger other mainsprings of human action that may cause a jury to base its decision on something other than the established propositions in the case. Zola v. Kelley, 149 N.H. 648, 655, 826 A.2d 589 (2003) (quotation omitted). Here, contrary to Smyjunas's suggestion, the primary purpose for admitting the evidence or the effect of its admission was not to provoke the jury's instinct to punish, but rather to establish one of the central issues of the casethat he depleted the assets of the corporate entities despite having notice of J & M's claim. In this context, evidence of Smyjunas's finances during the years in question was highly probative. While admission of the 1998 account transcript arguably was prejudicial, we conclude that the danger of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh its probative value. Therefore, the trial court did not err by admitting Smyjunas's 1998 account transcript into evidence.