Opinion ID: 2263396
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Handwriting Sample.

Text: The Caulfields contend that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Dr. Stark, after he had completed his testimony, to retake the witness stand for the limited purpose of authenticating some checks that he had written in 1995. Dr. Stark introduced this handwriting evidence to demonstrate how he wrote the numeral 5. This issue arose because the Caulfields contended at trial that the preauthorization form allegedly completed by Dr. Stark during his May 17, 1995 consultation with Ms. Caulfield had been prepared sometime later than that date because it had not been produced with Ms. Caulfield's other medical records during discovery. A juror also questioned whether the date of procedure on the form was 5/24/95 or 5/24/98. The Caulfields now contend on appeal that the admission of these checks to address this issue had been highly prejudicial and an unfair surprise, and that they had not been given an opportunity to determine the authenticity of the checks or to have them analyzed by a handwriting expert. The determination of what evidence is relevant, and what evidence may tend to confuse the jury, is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Turcios v. United States Servs. Indus., 680 A.2d 1023, 1030 (D.C.1996). The Caulfields raised the issue of the date on the preauthorization form during trial to support their contention that the form had been prepared after this litigation was initiated. Additional emphasis was directed to the date on the form when a juror questioned whether the last digit in the date was a 5 or an 8. Thus, the Caulfields should not have been surprised that Dr. Stark would attempt to contest this assertion with his own evidence and testimony. [12] Furthermore, the court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow the handwriting on the checks to be the subject of analysis by a handwriting expert. There can be no question that an express acknowledgment by the purporting writer affords an adequate ground of belief in the authenticity of the writing received, and this is generally accepted. 3 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE § 700 (Chadbourn rev.1970). Dr. Stark testified that the checks admitted in evidence were written by him in 1995. Accordingly, because the handwriting was authenticated by the writer the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the admission of the checks written by Dr. Stark.