Opinion ID: 2559893
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exclusion of the Disciplinary Action and Consent Agreement

Text: [¶ 14] The court granted a motion in limine by Kippax and excluded, pursuant to M.R. Evid. 403, [1] evidence of the disciplinary action and consent agreement from the Board of Dental Examiners. We review a trial court's evidentiary rulings on relevance and prejudicial effect for clear error and abuse of discretion, respectively, according wide discretion to the trial court. State v. Allen, 2006 ME 20, ¶ 17, 892 A.2d 447, 453. Jacob bears the burden of proving an abuse of discretion. Todd v. Andalkar, 1997 ME 59, ¶ 7, 691 A.2d 1215, 1218. [¶ 15] Preliminarily, Jacob appears to argue that the court acted improperly by ruling on the motion in limine at all because we have cautioned that a Rule 403 balancing often requires waiting for the evidence to develop at trial. See State v. Patterson, 651 A.2d 362, 367 (Me. 1994). Here, the court stated several times that it would reconsider the ruling if the disciplinary action became relevant during trial testimony. The court did not err in ruling on the motion in this fashion. See State v. Pinkham, 586 A.2d 730, 731 (Me.1991) ([An evidence] ruling does not become final ... until the evidence is offered at trial.). [¶ 16] Further, the exclusion of the evidence in Jacob's case-in-chief was not an abuse of discretion. To be admissible, evidence must be relevant, and may not be evidence of prior wrongful acts to show that the person acted in conformity therewith. See M.R. Evid. 404(b). Jacob argues that the evidence is relevant and admissible because it was not offered to show conformity, but rather: (1) to impeach both Kippax and the defense expert by showing bias and lack of credibility; (2) for the admissions that it contained; (3) to show absence of mistake or motive; or (4) to rebut habit evidence. [¶ 17] Jacob argues that the evidence is relevant for impeachment because the prior discipline shows Kippax's motive to deny negligence in this case, because his medical license and reputation would be at risk. Kippax's interest in this case, however, is self-evident. Further, it is not apparent how the evidence would show bias by the expert. Cf. Irish v. Gimbel ( Irish I ), 1997 ME 50, ¶¶ 24-25, 691 A.2d 664, 674 (holding that evidence of a prior lawsuit against the expert for conduct similar to that alleged against the defendant is relevant because it shows the expert's interest in testifying that the conduct was within the standard of care). [¶ 18] Additionally, while the statements contained in the consent agreement are admissions under M.R. Evid. 801(d)(2), they are not relevant because they do not deal with or relate to the conduct in this case. See State v. Jordan, 1997 ME 101, ¶ 7, 694 A.2d 929, 931 (holding that evidence of prior acts against a third party had no probative value in proving his guilt of the later crime committed against someone else). The fact that the consent agreement contains language that it covers all alleged violations relating to the same issues as discussed in the agreement and occurring prior to its date is not, as Jacob contends, probative evidence of negligent treatment of Jacob. The evidence is also not probative to show motive or absence of mistake. Finally, in regard to Jacob's claim that the evidence is admissible to rebut habit evidence, at the motion in limine stage no habit evidence had been presented, and the court explicitly stated that if such evidence emerged at trial, it would reconsider the ruling. [¶ 19] Given this lack of probative value, the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the significant risk of unfair prejudice presented by the disciplinary action and consent agreement required exclusion of this evidence in Jacob's case-in-chief. See M.R. Evid. 403 ([E]vidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.); see also Field & Murray, Maine Evidence § 404.4 at 143 (6th ed. 2007) (Because of the accessibility of propensity inferences from evidence of prior acts, evidence of either acts which resemble the act in question or acts which carry with them overall negative connotations calls for the court to exercise special caution in admitting such evidence, even for limited purposes....). [¶ 20] Although the court left open the possibility that the evidence might become admissible during the trial, the record does not disclose any occasion when Jacob attempted to offer the evidence to rebut a specific course of testimony. As the court noted in its discussions with the parties, some portion of the evidence might have become admissible if, for example, Jacob had elicited testimony that Kippax routinely performed some practice that the Board had in fact disciplined him for failing to perform. In particular, during the cross-examination of Kippax's expert, Jacob could have asked the expert if he knew that Kippax's records, which he testified he relied upon, were accurate, and at that point might have offered evidence that Kippax was disciplined for failing to properly document procedures. A similar line of questioning might have introduced a portion of the documents in response to Kippax's testimony that he had no memory of the procedure independent of his notes. This did not occur, and even had this testimony arisen, Jacob would bear the burden to move for the admission of the documents or some portion thereof at that point in time, which she did not do. Any such offering would additionally be subject to the court's Rule 403 analysis, which we would review for an abuse of discretion. Because no such facts are presented here, we discern no error.