 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Abrams v. Marlin Firearms Company2/27/2003
t which he complains is relevant and probative, and we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting it. We affirm the judgment entered in accordance with the unanimous jury verdict in favor of the defendants Marlin Firearms Company and Gary Dedeaux d/b/a Gary's Pawn and Gunshop.
. AFFIRMED.
PITTMAN, C.J., SMITH, P.J., COBB, EASLEY, CARLSON AND GRAVES, JJ., CONCUR. McRAE, P.J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY DIAZ, J.
McRAE, PRESIDING JUSTICE, DISSENTING:
. The admission of evidence of possible illegal deer hunting had no probity whatsoever and was unfairly prejudicial. This case should therefore be reversed and remanded for a new trial. Whether Abrams was illegally hunting deer, or even legally hunting deer, is of no probative value as to whether a loaded gun, regardless of why, where, or when it was loaded, had a manufacturing defect or whether Abrams was negligent.
. In this case, the only relevant fact concerning Abrams and the issue of defect or negligence, is how the gun was loaded and fired. Deer hunting has nothing to do with how a gun is loaded or fired. Moreover, even if a strained case of relevance can be made, as was done here, the prejudicial effect of illegal hunting far outweighs such an attenuation. Admission of evidence of illegal activity, when not relevant or even remotely relevant, serves only one purpose: it prejudices and sways the jury by destroying a party's character and integrity.
. The majority, however, justifies the admission of possible illegal deer hunting on the notion that "it is inherent that nearly all evidence is prejudicial to a party one way or another;" and it further elaborates that evidence of illegal hunting was "not to evoke rancor against the plaintiff with the jury." This catch-all, "oh-it's-no-big-deal" type of justification is far too slender a reed upon which to hang admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence in a product defect case. Abrams was prejudiced when this information was put before the jury. I would reverse and remand for a new trial. Accordingly, I dissent.
DIAZ, J., JOINS THIS OPINION.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|