Court Opinion

ID: 9649145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:43:19.947961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:08.202867
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring in part. I agree with the majority opinion but concur on the reasoning given for sustaining the trial court’s ruling permitting the introduction of the Travelers Insurance Company memo. The majority correctly concludes appellants Travelers Insurance Company and Dan Ray failed to preserve the evidentiary Rule 608(b) argument the appellants attempt to raise on appeal. As to whether the trial court abused its discretion in ruling the memo was relevant and therefore admissible, I believe the memo was relevant under Ark. R. Evid. Rule 404(b) to show Travelers had knowledge of Ray’s past misrepresentations. I do not join in this court’s Ark. R. Evid. Rule 613 discussion regarding Ray’s credibility, which I fail to find in either the appellants’ or appellees’ briefs. Imber, J., joins this opinion.