Opinion ID: 2174398
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: evidence regarding prior employment.

Text: Schumacher was previously employed with Wharf as its safety security coordinator. At trial, Darrow sought to introduce evidence Schumacher had difficulty in supervising employees under his charge and in exercising authority over them. The trial court disallowed this evidence, granting Schumacher's motion in limine precluding Darrow from offering any evidence upon any manner referring to... Schumacher's prior employment with Wharf Mining Company. Darrow asserts the evidence was admissible under SDCL 19-12-5 (Rule 404(b) (prior bad acts evidence)) for the limited purpose of establishing intent and knowledge and under SDCL 19-12-8 (Rule 406) (habit evidence). We are not convinced. The trial court's evidentiary rulings are presumed correct and will not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. Stormo, 469 N.W.2d at 820; Zepp v. Hofmann, 444 N.W.2d 28, 31 (S.D. 1989). Accord Opp v. Nieuwsma, 458 N.W.2d 352, 357 (S.D.1990); Bank of Toronto v. Lengkeek, 436 N.W.2d 271, 277 (S.D.1989). The question of whether evidence is immaterial, conjectural or remote must generally be left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Magbuhat v. Kovarik, 382 N.W.2d 43, 47 (S.D.1986); Durham v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 315 N.W.2d 696, 699 (S.D.1982). Schumacher's duties as Wharf's safety security coordinator entailed the supervising of employees in the security department, and scheduling, training and supervising Wharf's Safety Department. Schumacher supervised from six to fourteen employees. This position was Schumacher's first position in a supervisory role. During Schumacher's two-year tenure as a supervisor at Wharf, he experienced problems. In performance appraisals, Schumacher's supervisor at Wharf concluded he had difficulty in exercising management skills over employees under his charge. Specifically, he had difficulty in delegating and exercising authority over other employees and was too authoritarian in discharging his supervisory responsibilities. One particular instance occurred in which Schumacher used verbally abusive language in response to another employee who was also using abusive language. At no time, were any allegations of use of excessive force brought during Schumacher's stint with Wharf. As such, the evidence Darrow sought to introduce did not rise to the level of a prior bad act, since a prior act must be reasonably related to the offending conduct. State v. Lodermeier, 481 N.W.2d 614, 625 (S.D. 1992); State v. Klein, 444 N.W.2d 16, 19 (S.D.1989). Nor do we believe the evidence was relevant to the causes of action alleged by Darrowexcessive use of force, emotional distress, false arrest and imprisonment, and a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We do not find persuasive Darrow's argument that Schumacher engaged in a habit or routine practice of authoritarian behavior toward those employees under his charge. In John W. Larson, South Dakota Evidence § 406.1, 190 (1991), it is noted that: An individual's disposition relative to peacefulness, drunkenness, or observance of religious mandates is too general to be a habit, these matters relating more to character. Finally, prior bad acts evidence is not admissible when considering an allegation of use of excessive force as intent of the actor is not part of the analysis under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard. Graham, 490 U.S. at 397, 109 S.Ct. at 1873, 104 L.Ed.2d at 456. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated: Plaintiffs argue that the district court should have admitted the officers' personnel records at trial because this evidence of prior bad acts was relevant to show whether the defendant police officers acted with reason and control or maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm. This argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Graham [citations omitted]. Robinson, 972 F.2d at 976; See also Foster v. Metropolitan Airports Comm'n, 914 F.2d 1076, 1080-81 (8th Cir.1990). We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit evidence concerning Schumacher's prior employment with Wharf. [3]