Opinion ID: 1673320
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Testimony as to Ethics

Text: American Pioneer objects that the trial court allowed Johnson and Pickett to testify that they thought issuing the annuity was unethical. This testimony was merely part of these two witnesses' description of why, as an executive officer and a senior employee of American Pioneer, they refused to issue the annuity. Furthermore, in the context of the testimony as a whole it was not error to allow this testimony. American Pioneer, in its cross-examination of Pickett at the beginning of the trial, asked, Did you know Mr. Haus to be an honorable man? A. Yes. Q. So you didn't have any reason to think that Mr. Haus was up to anything when he [told you to go ahead and issue the policy], did you? A. No. This question sufficiently opened the door on ethics that the trial court's later ruling allowing Ayres to ask such questions is not reversible error. Shortly thereafter, American Pioneer asked Pickett if he knew of anyone doing anything illegal in the issuance of the annuity. Later, in redirect examination, Mr. Ayres's attorney asked Pickett if he thought the application was ethical. The court sustained an objection, and the attorney rephrased the question, Would you say from your standpoint as a CLUwould you say this was an unethical application? A. Yes. No objection was made to this question, nor did American Pioneer move to exclude the answer. Ayres's attorney asked no further questions, but American Pioneer's attorney immediately thereafter extensively cross-examined Pickett on the question of ethics. After this cross-examination, the court granted American Pioneer's motion to exclude Pickett's answer. We see nothing in this exchange to which American Pioneer can object. Later, during questioning of Johnson, she was asked if she thought issuing the policy was unethical. The court overruled an objection, and she answered that she though it was unethical. This again was a single question in the course of her testimony about her objections to the policy being issued. In light of how extensively the door had been opened during Pickett's testimony, we do not find that the court erred in overruling the objection. We note further, incidentally, that the court sustained objections to questions of whether Pickett and Johnson thought Green was an honorable man, an issue explicitly opened by American Pioneer with respect to Mr. Haus.