Opinion ID: 2627401
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Rejection of Request to Introduce Additional Evidence

Text: [¶ 8] After remand, Appellants indicated to the trial court that they wished to present additional evidence to support their claim that Ms. Belden had signed the promissory notes as an accommodation party. Specifically, they sought to present the testimony of two witnesses who were employees of the Bank of Jackson Hole at the time Note 1 was executed. On appeal, Appellants contend that the district court erred in refusing to allow the proposed testimony. [¶ 9] We review the district court's decision regarding the receipt of additional evidence at the hearing after remand for an abuse of discretion. S-Creek Ranch, Inc. v. Monier & Co., 518 P.2d 930, 931 (Wyo.1974). See also Decker v. State ex rel. Wyo. Med. Comm'n, 2008 WY 100, ¶¶ 20-22, 191 P.3d 105, 119 (Wyo.2008). In our prior decision in this case, we reversed the original judgment and sentence and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Belden, ¶ 21, 156 P.3d at 325. The district court correctly noted that our prior decision only required that the court consider evidence of an oral contract that it had previously admitted, but declined to consider. We did not state or suggest that the court was required to accept additional evidence regarding the accommodation issue. [¶ 10] The issue presented is similar to one that we recently resolved in Decker, ¶¶ 20-22, 191 P.3d at 119 ( Decker II ). In Mr. Decker's first appeal, we determined that the Medical Commission failed to make findings of fact that adequately explained its denial of worker's compensation benefits. Decker v. State ex rel. Wyo. Med. Comm'n, 2005 WY 160, ¶ 36, 124 P.3d 686, 697 (Wyo. 2005) ( Decker I ). We remanded the case for supplemental findings of fact or other proceedings consistent with this opinion. Id., ¶ 42, 124 P.3d at 699. On remand, the Medical Commission made additional findings of fact and entered an order denying benefits. Decker II, ¶ 2, 191 P.3d at 108. On appeal from that order, Mr. Decker contended that he should have been allowed to present additional evidence to support his claim. Id., ¶ 20, 191 P.3d at 119. We held that our mandate did not require the case be reopened to allow additional evidence. It only required the Medical Commission enter a new order more thoroughly explaining the reason for its denial of benefits based on the evidence adduced at the hearing so we could rationally review its decision. Id., ¶ 21, 191 P.3d at 119. We found that the Medical Commission's order complied with that mandate and that Mr. Decker was not owed a second bite at the apple. Id., ¶ 22, 191 P.3d at 119. [¶ 11] Appellants are in the same position as Mr. Decker. They had the opportunity to present witnesses, including the testimony of the bank personnel at issue here, during the trial in 2005. For reasons not evident in the record, they chose not to present the testimony in that proceeding. The district court complied with our mandate and we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to refuse admission of additional evidence at the hearing after remand.