Court Opinion

ID: 9534651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:41:44.297116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:55.178420
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in the Court’s opinion, except part I (The Jury Instruction on Liquidated Damages) and part 11(B) (The City’s Exhibit 14). As to these parts, I respectfully dissent.
In my view, Parson controls the question presented concerning the liquidated damage instruction, and I would affirm the instruction given by the trial court.
In my view, the trial court correctly rejected Exhibit 14. The exhibit was a summary admissible pursuant to I.R.E. 1006 if the original documents had been made available for examination or copying, or both. The trial court sustained objection to the exhibit on the ground the original documents had not been made available. On appeal, the city states the issue with regard to this exhibit as follows:
2. Did the court err in ruling that Plaintiff’s Exhibit 14, a computer printout of information placed into an electronic computer memory, was a summary as contemplated by I.R.E. 1006?
Appellant’s Brief, 10.
The city did not attempt to justify the admissibility of the exhibit pursuant to I.R.E. 803(6). Therefore, the Court should not address this question.
McDEVITT, J., concurs.