Court Opinion

ID: 9505588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:06:59.514812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:37.686510
License: Public Domain

BOEHM, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because, in my view, the first and second issues addressed by the majority are not independent of each other, and, in concert, produce a flawed trial. Dr. Blinder testified, among other things, that in his opinion Manuilov was not a malingerer. This opinion was not based on observation of physical symptoms or scientifically valid tests, but on Blinder’s observation of Manuilov’s behavior and accounts of that behavior furnished by Manuilov or his counsel. Among the latter was the assurance that Manuilov had no criminal history or anti-social behavior.
Blinder told the jury that Manuilov had no criminal history and suggested he was not a “wife beater.” These assumptions were explicitly made a basis of his view that Manuilov was not a malingerer. This was not challenged under Indiana Evidence Rule 704(b), which provides that a witness may not testify as to whether another “witness has testified truthfully,” so, to the extent this is an issue, it is not presented here. However, when the defense sought to prove that the information on which Blinder based his views was false, the trial court excluded that evidence because of the- obvious prejudice that would result from evidence that Manuilov was allegedly involved in domestic violence. An offer of proof established that the defense was prepared to offer evidence that Manuilov had been charged with domestic violence on at least two occasions, and had been found in contempt of a restraining order.
The balance under Indiana Evidence Rule 403 between probative value and prejudice is a matter of trial court discretion and this ruling was made under difficult circumstances by an experienced and highly respected trial judge. Certainly in normal circumstances that balance would preclude evidence of domestic violence or a minor criminal record even if marginally relevant. Here, however, the evidence was offered to rebut factually incorrect testimony that Manuilov had purposefully elicited to bolster his claim. In my view, Manuilov opened the door as wide as it can get. It is simply unfair to permit a party to open up the subject of his own truthfulness, put on an expert to bolster it based on false factual assumptions, and then successfully oppose evidence that undercuts those assumptions under a claim of prejudice. I believe the Court of Appeals majority was correct in ordering a new trial.
SHEPARD, C.J., concurs.