Opinion ID: 882762
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: testimony regarding alcohol

Text: Finally, Hislop claims that the District Court erred in allowing testimony that Colin was in the Packer's Roost prior to his death. We disagree. Prior to trial, Hislop moved to suppress evidence of alcohol consumption by Colin. The District Court granted the motion, ruling that the evidence had no probative value and was potentially prejudicial. At trial, testimony was introduced that Colin had been in the Packer's Roost immediately prior to his death. However, there was no testimony given at any time during the trial that Colin had consumed any alcohol prior to his death. In addition, the District Court instructed the jury that use of alcohol was not an issue in the case and was not to be considered in making a decision. Here, the jury found that Cady was negligent but that his negligence was not the cause of Colin's death. Therefore, the jury did not consider any alcohol consumption on the part of Colin, as the issue of comparative negligence never arose. Hislop, herself, acknowledges in her brief that [p]resumably the jury followed the trial court's instruction regarding alcohol use. Therefore, we hold that Hislop's contention that the District Court erred in allowing testimony that Colin was in the Packer's Roost prior to his death is without merit. Affirmed. GRAY, TRIEWEILER, HUNT and WEBER, JJ., concur.