Opinion ID: 1355792
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: did the superior court err by permitting era to question witnesses about the first trial?

Text: During the course of his direct examination Dr. Green, a psychologist, referred to Glen Buoy's stress from the accident and litigation. During cross-examination of Dr. Green, counsel for ERA alluded several times to the first trial which was held in this case. At various points in his cross-examination counsel inquired whether Glen Buoy's disappointment over the first jury's verdict affected his mental state. [3] The Buoy's claim the superior court erred in allowing this line of questions. [4] We hold that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in permitting counsel for ERA to cross-examine Buoy's expert as to whether the verdict in the first trial affected Buoy's mental condition. In his re-direct examination of Dr. Green, the Buoys' own attorney attempted to establish that Buoy's clinical depression was not attributable to the litigation: Q: But, Doctor, aren't the lawyers asking the questions and the psychologists seeing him and giving tests, isn't that  isn't that really affecting him from getting well? A: No, that's not affecting his depression... . Dr. Green also testified on redirect as follows: I guess it appears to me that you're trying to say, I think, from all of this, that the litigation is what's caused Mr. Buoy's problem. And I don't think that is the case at all. Mr. Buoy was depressed before the  the whole thing happened, and what has occurred is his depression has followed what I think is an extremely predictable typical course of somebody who has a post-traumatic depression. The initial focus is on all of physical difficulties. Once that's over the depression starts to emerge. Typically in these kind of situations where there is litigation involved, if the litigation plays any role at all, what happens is is it shifts the focus away from his depression temporarily, but it doesn't  it doesn't change it, the depression is still there.... Following Dr. Green's testimony on re-direct examination, counsel for the Buoys objected to ERA's proposed re-cross-examination of Dr. Green. In response, the superior court ruled as follows: THE COURT: Well, Counsel, sometimes what you do in a trial sticks you, and what you've done in trial just stuck you. You're going to get a full cross-examination on this issue, and I  and I did my best to make sure that incendiary issues were kept out of this trial. You opened it wide open. I can't expect this doctor to understand doctrines of admissibility, I expect it from the lawyers. You opened it wide open, and you're going to get the cross-examination.... It seems to me the issue of Mr. Buoy's expectations being dashed in the first trial because the jury came in low may be a legitimate subject of cross-examination... . In our view this ruling does not constitute an abuse of discretion. As the superior court recognized, one of the central issues at trial was whether the helicopter accident was a substantial factor in causing Glen Buoy's depression. The Buoys introduced evidence that the crash led to Glen Buoy's mental condition, as well as evidence that the litigation did not cause or worsen his depression. However, the verdict rendered by the first jury was clearly less than Buoy had hoped for. Therefore, ERA was entitled to test the weight of Dr. Green's assertion that the litigation did not affect Buoy's mental condition by inquiring into whether Buoy's disappointment in the first jury's verdict deepened his depression. To counter any potentially prejudicial tendencies of this line of questioning, the superior court specifically instructed the jury to consider evidence concerning the first trial only for the purpose of determining what effect, if any, the first trial had on Buoy's psychological condition.