Court Opinion

ID: 9759849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:30:07.619894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:05.474962
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. Arkansas Unif. R. Evid. 404 states: “Evidence of a person’s character ... is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. . . .” In my opinion the foregoing words are plain and unambiguous and need no unusual interpretation. It is argued that the exception to the rule set out in Rule 404(a)(1) is applicable here. I do not think so. The exception states: “Evidence of a pertinent trait of his character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same;. . .’’It lakes no stretch of the imagination to see that this exception is intended to be used in criminal cases. Here we have a civil action sounding in tort. In the present case appellant admitted he was the aggressor. This issue was not in dispute. Even if it were relevant proof would have been unnecessary because the fact was admitted. When the question about this trait of his character was asked his attorney made an objection. The court failed to allow him to state specific objections by stating: “Make your objections now and I will let you specify more in detail later,...” All parties were no doubt aware of Rule 404 at the time of the objection. A lawyer who insists upon stating specific objections, after being told not to do so by the trial court, risks not only losing points with the jury, but exposes himself to possible contempt. I believe everyone understood the reason for appellant’s objection. This court should not evade the real issues and refuse to consider it on its merits. So far as I am concerned this is putting form over substance. Also, in my opinion the award of damages is shocking to the conscience. Three hundred dollars property damage does not support a $50,000 award for personal damages when there was no physical trauma. I would reverse and remand for another trial because it is obvious the verdict resulted from passion and prejudice.