Opinion ID: 1575232
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Nelson's Video Deposition

Text: Prior to trial, Nelson's testimony was taken during a video deposition because she was suffering from cancer and it was unknown whether she would be able to testify in person at the time of trial. Nelson, though, was able to testify at trial and was cross-examined by the appellees during her case-in-chief. When Dr. Stubblefield presented his evidence, the circuit judge allowed him, over Nelson's objection, to play to the jury selected portions of their cross-examination of Nelson during her video deposition. Nelson now maintains that it was error for the circuit judge to allow Dr. Stubblefield to present portions of her deposition testimony during Dr. Stubblefield's case-in-chief. In support of her argument, Nelson contends that she was present at the trial and had already testified, that the presentation of her deposition testimony was cumulative because it covered points on which she had been cross-examined during trial, and that her deposition testimony contained hearsay statements made by her husband. Again, a circuit judge is accorded wide discretion in evidentiary rulings, and this court will not reverse such rulings absent a manifest abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Skiver v. State, 336 Ark. 86, 983 S.W.2d 931 (1999). Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(2) states that [t]he deposition of a party ... may be used by an adverse party for any purpose.  Ark. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(2) (2008) (emphasis added). Here, Nelson was a party plaintiff and Dr. Stubblefield and St. Bernards were the adverse parties. Thus, the presentation of Nelson's deposition testimony during Dr. Stubblefield's case-in-chief was a perfectly permissible practice. Arthur v. Zearley, 337 Ark. 125, 139, 992 S.W.2d 67, 75 (1999) (Zearleys entitled to present the deposition testimony of Arthur irrespective of his availability to testify at trial); see also Ouachita Mining & Exploration, Inc. v. Wigley, 318 Ark. 750, 887 S.W.2d 526 (1994) (Ouachita Mining was entitled to present the deposition of Wigley irrespective of the hearsay rule and irrespective of his availability at trial). As to Nelson's hearsay argument regarding statements made to her by her husband and testified to by her in the video deposition, the rules of evidence are clear that admissions by a party-opponent are not hearsay. Ark. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) (2008); Zearley, supra ; Ouachita Mining, supra . Nelson admitted that the statements by her husband were made. [5] We hold that it was not an abuse of discretion for the circuit judge to allow the appellees to present Nelson's deposition testimony.