Opinion ID: 71892
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: admission of the personnel board officer's report

Text: 58 Over the City's objection, the district court admitted into evidence the report of Personnel Board Officer Ann Arnold, which recommended that Morro be reinstated, because the charges against him were not supported by the evidence. In view of that recommendation, the report could be read to imply that the Chief lacked a proper motive in disciplining Morro. 59 The City concedes that the report was arguably relevant, but contends that its admission unfairly prejudiced the jury and confused the issues. Morro responds that the City opened the door to this evidence by suggesting, in its opening statement, that Morro got a personnel board officer who felt sorry for him. In other words, Morro contends that by introducing the report, he was able to rebut the notion that the personnel board officer made her decision based on emotional factors. Even if admission of the report was otherwise objectionable, the City did open the door to its admission. 60 Moreover, we note that the district court gave a limiting instruction on the report. Specifically, the district court charged the jury as follows: 61 I want to stop because I think I forgot when I talked about what's not evidence, in evidence is the personnel board hearing officer's recommendation upon which the personnel board restored the plaintiff to his job position upon making a decision that the discipline had been improperly imposed. Now, I let that in evidence, and so it is evidence because it's in. But I want to explain to you and make sure you understand that the personnel board does its thing, I do my thing, and you do your thing. They are not the same thing. And the mere fact that the personnel board has made a determination, whatever it is, is not binding on you. It does not adjudicate or determine as a final matter of law or fact that Scott Morro did not intentionally or deliberately or negligently fail to be prepared to testify, which is what the charge was. The personnel board made its choice and decision based on what it had. And you had some of the same evidence perhaps that it had. But what it decided does not bind you one way or the other. It's some evidence for you to consider for whatever weight you want to give it. You can give it some weight or no weight. 62 That limiting instruction was adequate. Particularly in view of that instruction, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the report.