Opinion ID: 1924721
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admissibility of Pattern and Practice Evidence

Text: CEC contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying its motion in limine and its motion for a mistrial on the basis of Mokrzycki's presentation of five pattern and practice witnesses. The trial court granted CEC's motion in limine in part, allowing the pattern and practice witnesses to testify that they received worker's compensation and were subsequently terminated by CEC; however, they were not allowed to state their opinion regarding the cause of their termination. After Mokrzycki presented these witnesses, CEC moved for a mistrial on the same grounds, which the trial court denied. CEC contends that the trial court erred to reversal in allowing these witnesses to testify at trial because, it says, there was no substantial similarity between the actions involving the pattern and practice witnesses and the actions involving Mokrzycki, and because their testimony was irrelevant. The trial judge has wide discretion in considering a motion for a mistrial. Georgia Casualty & Sur. Co. v. White, 582 So.2d 487, 495 (Ala.1991). The trial court's decision may not be reversed unless it clearly appears that its discretion has been abused. General Finance Corp. v. Smith, 505 So.2d 1045, 1049 (Ala.1987); Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. Von Haden, 416 So.2d 699, 701 (Ala.1982). The trial court heard arguments on this motion both before the trial and after Mokrzycki had put on his case. The trial court heard the witnesses testify in camera before allowing them to testify at trial. The trial court determined that these witnesses had had experiences substantially similar to Mokrzycki's and therefore permitted these witnesses to testify. The trial court relied upon C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 84.01(2) (4th ed. 1991), in ruling on CEC's motion for a mistrial. This section states that [t]here is common law authority in this state that, for the purpose of showing negligence or other improper conduct, a party is entitled to prove matters of custom and usage. The plaintiff's claim of retaliatory discharge constitutes other improper conduct for which proof of the defendant's pattern and practice is admissible. Therefore, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court's permitting these five pattern and practice witnesses to testify at trial.