Court Opinion

ID: 9671800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:43:33.499156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:12.156672
License: Public Domain

GARRISON, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. My dissent, however, is restricted to the majority’s ruling on Defendant’s first point. I agree that Defendant did not preserve for appeal its contention that Plaintiffs argument constituted an adverse inference on its failure to call Captain McKinney as a witness. I disagree, however, with the conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the argument by Plaintiffs counsel concerning the content of Captain McKinney’s opinions.
Plaintiffs attorney, in opening statement, said that Empiregas had hired an expert accident reconstruetionist named Captain McKinney, a retired Kansas City police officer, who “consults with large companies and a large part of his work involves large companies defending lawsuits.” He then said:
but Captain McKinney says some things that are important in this case.
He says, first of all, that he can look at David’s car, I believe he looked at these photographs and this photograph (Indicating), he didn’t look at the actual car, didn’t measure the actual car but from looking at these photographs he is able to determine a crush profile.
Captain McKinney can look at that photograph and tell you at point C-l that car crushed in at 19.2 inches and C-2 9.2 inches and he’s got a crush profile of the car and from that he’s worked a physics formula and he has testified that David Robinson was traveling 50 miles per hour before this wreck, exactly what David says.
He has testified that David Robinson put on his brakes probably about a second before this wreck, exactly what David says. He says that David was able to slow in that one second from 50 miles an hour to 29 miles per hour and bring his speed down to probably a level that saved his life, so the basic facts of what Captain McKinney will say, that’s what David says, that’s what Mr. Copus says, but Captain McKinney says this. He says, “I wasn’t there and I don’t know how that truck driver drove that day, I don’t know how Mr. Copus drove.”
He says Mr. Copus came down, straight down the roadway and turned like this (Indicating), and traveled straight like this (Indicating), then that would take about as much time as David could travel this distance (Indicating).
I said, “Okay, but does that match the damage to the photographs?” He said, “No, that doesn’t match the damage to the photographs.”
I said, “Okay, what matches the damage to the photographs” and he says, “The truck cutting the corner, coming down like this (Indicating) matches the damage to the photographs and David would have approximately two seconds in which to avoid this collision and he couldn’t avoid it in two seconds.”
These statements did not necessarily indicate that Captain McKinney was a witness expected to be called by Defendant rather than Plaintiff.
Defendant, in opening statement, indicated that Captain McKinney would testify about *844“reaction times and braking times and wet pavement and dry pavement and so forth.” He also indicated that he would testify that a driver confronted with a situation like this 600 feet away could react and stop in approximately 250 feet.
In closing argument, Plaintiffs counsel said:
and I also told you in opening statement that I thought liability in this case was not a complicated factor because defendants hired an expert witness and [sic] named Captain McKinney and I took Captain McKinney’s deposition and I told you in opening statement that Captain McKinney would say these things.
At that point, Defendant’s counsel objected that Plaintiff was discussing “deposition testimony from witnesses that didn’t appear and testify.” After a colloquy between counsel which was set out in the majority opinion, the trial court permitted Plaintiffs counsel to proceed. He then said the following which was outside the record:
Captain McKinney is the best in Kansas City. Empire Gas would hire the best and they did.
Again, Defendant objected to introducing evidence in closing argument that wasn’t introduced at trial but this time the objection was clearly overruled after Plaintiffs attorney said, “These are my statementin [sic] opening statement.” Plaintiffs counsel then proceeded to summarize the alleged opinions of Captain McKinney which he had included in his opening statement and which are set out in the majority opinion. Included was the following:
and I waited and I waited and Captain McKinney did not come into this courtroom and deny a single thing I said in opening statement and he did not say what [Defendant’s attorney] said he would in his opening statement, and folks, I’ll guarantee you, they spend their money for a man with those qualifications, if he would help them he would be here.
Plaintiffs attorney, in his argument, also used what is described as a large poster containing the following:

capt. mckinney

1. David was traveling 50 m.p.h.
2. The skidmarks show Copus angled into the intersection while making his turn.
3. David had two seconds and could not avoid the wreck.
4. David applied his brakes one second before impact and slowed to 29 m.p.h.
This argument was a continuation of what Plaintiffs attorney said in opening statement, not what was admitted in evidence. Arguments of counsel must be based on the evidence. Davis v. City of Independence, 404 S.W.2d 718, 720 (Mo. banc 1966). While the field of jury argument is broad, it is not so broad as to permit a party to go beyond the record. Cook by Cook v. Willis, 885 S.W.2d 791, 793 (Mo.App.S.D.1994). In the instant case, Plaintiffs attorney argued that “Captain McKinney did not come into this courtroom and deny a single thing I said in opening statement_” What Plaintiffs attorney said in opening statement was not evidence, yet it was treated as such in closing argument with the approval of the trial court.
Plaintiffs attorney also argued that Captain McKinney, whom he had already identified in opening as often working for big companies in defending cases, essentially agreed with his client’s version of critical facts. All of this was outside the record and not supported by evidence. It was not restricted to comments on Defendant’s failure to present evidence which it promised in opening statement. Rather, it was an argument based on anticipated evidence which Plaintiffs counsel summarized in his opening statement, and it even went beyond the parameters laid out at that time by adding that Captain McKinney was the “best” accident reconstructionist in Kansas City. In fact, Plaintiffs counsel clearly implied that the matters contained in his opening statement and closing argument were based on the witness’s deposition, and he also used a visual aid to portray the contents of Captain McKinney’s opinions. It was outside the record but was presented as fact.
*845Defendant made no mention of Captain McKinney in it’s closing argument. Notwithstanding that fact, Plaintiffs counsel, in the closing portion of his argument, again told the jury they could consider what he had said in the opening portion of his argument about Captain McKinney. He also referred to the fact that there had been no mention, in Defendant’s closing argument, of Plaintiffs counsel’s statements about Captain McKinney and said:
You decide why it wasn’t and I’ll tell you one thing, if somebody says something and I’m in a case and it’s my job to defend that case, I’m going to answer that question before I sit down, that’s common sense but instead it’s, let’s accuse and let’s confuse, that’s the cry of people in lawsuits.
These comments constituted yet another reference to the statements of Plaintiffs counsel about what Captain McKinney’s deposition testimony had been and, in effect, constituted an argument that defense counsel should have, but failed to, refute those statements. This was a further use of Captain McKinney’s deposition testimony as the equivalent of evidence, although it was never introduced.
Plaintiff effectively created an adverse inference from Defendant’s failure to call Captain McKinney. While Defendant did not object to the argument on that basis, it did object that Plaintiff was arguing matters not in evidence. A party may not benefit by reading favorable portions of a witness’s deposition and also have the advantage of an adverse inference from the failure to call the witness. Kelly by Kelly v. Jackson, 798 S.W.2d 699, 702 (Mo. banc 1990). That is effectively what happened here.
Liability was a contested issue in this case. Defendant was found to be 100% at fault, which was consistent with Captain McKinney’s alleged opinion that Plaintiff “could not avoid the wreck.” In my opinion, the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the argument which I believe was prejudicial and warrants a reversal and remand for a new trial.