Miller & Zois, LLC

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ALL
EVIDENCE OF THE PURPORTED WILL OF MR. SECHRIST

      

Plaintiffs, Michelle Turner and the Estate of Michael T. Turner (hereinafter “the Estate”), by and through their attorneys, Ronald V. Miller, Jr., Laura G. Zois and Miller & Zois, LLC hereby files Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine to Exclude all Evidence that Plaintiff is the Personal Representative or Beneficiary of the Estate of Michael Turner.  As will be argued herein, such evidence should be excluded because it is irrelevant.  Even if this Court were to determine such evidence had some limited degree of relevance, the evidence should be excluded because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice.
INTRODUCTION

On July 18, 2006, at approximately 3:55 p.m., Plaintiff’s father, Michael T. Turner, was operating his motor vehicle northbound on Falls Road, north of Woodward Lane, in the State of Maryland when the Defendant, who was traveling southbound on Falls Road lost control of his vehicle, crossed the center double yellow lines into the northbound lane of travel and struck the vehicle operated by Mr. Turner.  Mr. Turner was pronounced dead at Sinai Hospital on July 18, 2006, at 4:28 p.m. from multiple injuries caused by the accident.

This case consists of two claims against Defendant.  First is a wrongful death claim brought by Ms. Harrison pursuant to Md. Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code Ann. § 3-904.  Second is a survival action brought by Mr. Turner’s Estate, through Ms. Harrison as the Personal Representative.  In addition to serving as Personal Representative, Ms. Harrsion is the sole beneficiary of the Estate.
THE DISPUTED EVIDENCE

Defendant is expected to allege that the relationship between the late Mr. Turner and Ms. Harrison was strained, relying upon testimony from Mr. Turner’s girlfriend.  Plaintiffs also expect that the defense will attempt to admit evidence that Ms. Harrison is the sole beneficiary of her father’s estate, in an effort to influence the jury to reduce the Estate’s damages claim by considering Ms. Harrison’s relationship with her father in determining what damages, if any, will be awarded to the Estate.
LEGAL STANDARD

“The admission of evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.”  Thomas v. State, 397 Md. 557, 919 A.2d 49, 62 (2007).
ARGUMENT

The disputed evidence should be excluded for two reasons.  First, it is irrelevant.  Such evidence does not make any fact of consequence in the action more or less likely.  It is therefore irrelevant under the evidentiary rules and has no place in this trial.  Second, even if the evidence were relevant, its probative value would be substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice.  Since any probative value would be extremely slight, and the proffered evidence is extremely inflammatory and prejudicial, it should be excluded from admission at this trial.
A.        The disputed evidence is irrelevant.

Maryland Rule 5-402 clearly states that “[e]vidence that is not relevant is not admissible.”  The rules provide a framework for determining whether any particular piece of evidence is relevant.  Md. Rule 5-401 defines “relevant evidence” as " [E]vidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."

Evidence is relevant when, in conjunction with all other relevant evidence, the evidence tends to make the proposition asserted more or less probable.  Snyder v. State, 361 Md. 580, 591, 762 A.2d 125, 131 (2000).   For the purposes of this Motion, the question may be framed as:  “Does the identity of the Personal Representative of Mr. Turner’s Estate make any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more or less likely?”  The answer is, no.
In order for the Court to make this determination, it must first ascertain what facts are of consequence to the determination of the action.  “What issues are material to a particular case is determined by the substantive law and the pleadings.”  McLain, Maryland Rules of Evidence § 401:1 (West, 2001).  “The applicable substantive law establishes the parameters of the elements of a particular claim or defense.”  Id. 

Plaintiffs concede that evidence regarding the nature of Ms. Harrison’s relationship with her father is relevant and material to her wrongful death claim, because the measure of her damages therein is the loss she sustained because of her father’s death, both pecuniary and non-economic.  State v. Copes, 175 Md. App. 351, 927 A.2d 426, 441 (2007). 

The Estate’s survival action is separate and distinct from Ms. Harrison’s wrongful death claim.  “A survival action is so named because the decedent’s personal representative is essentially bringing an action that the decedent could have brought had he or she not died.”   Id.  “The personal representative serves as the posthumous agent of the victim; the survival action arises from the tortuous infliction of injury upon the victim; and damages are measured in terms of harm to the victim.”  Id.  The basis of a survival action is “the injury the decedent suffered.”  Lopez v. Maryland State Highway Admin., 327 Md. 486, 610 A.2d 778 (1992).
Having established the material issues, it must be determined what facts are of consequence to answering these questions, and whether the disputed evidence has any bearing on those facts.
Thus, the Court’s task is to determine whether the identity of the Estate’s Personal Representative has any bearing on the issues to be determined by the jury in the survival claim.  This evidence plainly has nothing to do with whether a duty of due care was owed to Mr. Turner, whether Mr. Turner sustained damages, whether his damages were causally related to any negligence of Defendant, or whether Defendant failed to exercise due care.  Each of these elements is determined solely by the actions of Defendant, the evidence of what the Defendant’s actions were and evidence of the damages sustained by Mr. Turner prior to his passing.  Restated, the identity of the Estate’s Personal Representative/Beneficiary cannot make any fact bearing upon these elements more or less likely.  Therefore, the identity of the Personal Representative or Beneficiary is irrelevant as a matter of law as to any element involved in determining whether Defendant was negligent or what damages should be awarded, and is therefore inadmissible.

B.        Even if the disputed evidence were relevant, it should be excluded because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Trial courts have great discretion in deciding what evidence may be submitted to the fact finder.  McLain, Maryland Rules of Evidence § 2.403.1 (West 1994).  This extends to the exclusion of relevant evidence where “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury…”  Md. Rule 5-403.
The disputed evidence has very little probative value.  It has no potential to make any fact of consequence in this case more or less likely.  It is Plaintiffs’ contention that the disputed evidence is not relevant to the Estate’s survival action in this car accident casel.  Even if this Court were to hold that the disputed evidence were relevant, any probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Whatever insight the identity of the Estate’s Personal Representative or Beneficiary may provide to the jury pales in comparison to the prejudice that will result from allowing the jury to be influenced by identifying Ms. Harrison as the Estate’s Beneficiary.  This type of evidence can have but one purpose - to invite the jury to consider the nature of Ms. Harrison’s relationship with her father in determining the damages due the Estate in the survival claim.

Where, as here, the probative value of the disputed evidence is nil or minimal, at best, and the likelihood of unfair prejudice or misleading the jury is substantial, this Court should rule that the disputed evidence is inadmissible at trial.
CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ Motion should be granted.  The disputed evidence is irrelevant under Md. Rule 5-402 because it does not make any fact of consequence to the determination of this case more or less likely.  Moreover, even if the disputed evidence had some limited degree of relevance, any probative value it had would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.  For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion should be granted, and the Court should enter an Order precluding any reference to the identity of the Estate’s Personal Representative or Beneficiary in this wrongful death survival action car accident case.