Court Opinion

ID: 9730344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:09:32.10688+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:05.844730
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
The January 18, 1991 ruling of the trial court which is the subject of this appeal reads in pertinent part as follows:
"IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED by the Court that any evidence as to the criminal charges placed against Mr. Lof-tus by the State of Indiana as a result of the incident forming the basis of this action are [sic]} inadmissible, including the pre-trial diversion agreement executed on November 15, 1983 and witnesses' testimony relating thereto." Record at 120.
The agreement sued upon in Count I of the amended complaint is not the pre-trial diversion agreement attached as Exhibit A to the complaint. Rather, it is a particular provision within the more comprehensive pre-trial diversion agreement. The particular provision involved in the present litigation relates solely to the promise of Gary Loftus "to pay all medical and/or psychiatric expenses incurred by any member of the ALFRED BEZY, JR. family as a result of conduct indicated in [the State Police Initial Case Report]." Record at 28. The State Police report was not attached as an exhibit to the complaint.1
The agreement here sued upon is not subject to any exclusion based upon an assertion that it is a plea bargain. As noted by the majority, although it is a part *971of the plea bargain agreement, it is not the plea bargain agreement itself. It is en-foreeable as a separate provision so long as the State has fulfilled its responsibilities under the basic agreement.
Loftus specifically agreed to pay for expenses relating to certain conduct by him. That conduct was defined by reference to the State Police report. Loftus thereby made the report an integral part of the agreement provision which benefitted the Bezy family. Loftus may not now be heard to object to the admissibility of the report or to the evidence of the conduct as described in that report.
Because there is a cause-and-effect dimension to the contract claim here, plaintiffs must establish a causal connection between the specific conduct indicated in the report and the specific medical and/or psychiatric expenses for which claim is made.
In my view, plaintiffs are at liberty to bring forth direct evidence of the tortious conduct alleged as the gravamen of the claims for assault and for battery and for punitive damages. Although the police report itself may not be admissible to prove that conduct as to these counts of the complaint, there is no preclusion to introduction of direct evidence of the conduct merely because that conduct also was the subject of criminal charges which were or may be dismissed.
With regard to the second issue discussed by the majority, I would not reach the balancing test between relevance and prejudicial impact. It appears that the question is not whether the portion of the plea agreement here involved is relevant. The question of relevance is not an appropriate issue when the matter in question is the claim itself. When the suit is upon a contract, as here, the contract is clearly admissible. Relevance is quite simply not in issue. Accordingly, the "degree of relevance vs. prejudicial impact" inquiry is not brought into play.
To be sure, other provisions of the pretrial diversion agreement are subject to the relevance-prejudicial impact analysis. But because we hold that those other provisions were properly excluded we need not have considered the matter of prejudicial impact.
I fully agree with the majority that the "agreement" is not excludable under I.C. 34-3-18-1. In a somewhat related context, I also would observe that we are not here concerned with the admissibility in a civil case of a final judgment in a criminal case. We are speaking of an agreement made by Loftus for the benefit of the Bezy family. It in no way involves a judgment of convietion.
Subject to the views set forth herein, I concur in reversal of the order and in the remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

. The complaint in this suit included not only a claim upon the agreement to pay medical and/or psychiatric expenses, but as well as claims for assault and for battery against Loftus and for punitive damages. The latter claims involved the specific conduct which was the subject of the State Police report.