Burlington Northern Railroad Company, Petitioner v. Sidney L. Hood, Respondent (Colorado 1990)

Summary

The court held that Burlington should have been permitted to question Hood and his wife about an alleged conversation in which Hood admitted staging the accident and feigning his injuries. The alleged admission was not hearsay, the marital privilege had been waived, and the evidence satisfied the threshold for conditional relevance and personal knowledge, leaving credibility and weight to the jury. The court also held that Burlington adequately preserved its challenge to the exclusion of the evidence and remanded for a new trial.

Holding

Marital privilege. The marital privilege did not bar Burlington from questioning Hood’s wife about the alleged conversation because Hood waived any claim of confidentiality by failing to assert the privilege during her deposition and by calling her at trial to testify about the legitimacy and severity of his injuries.

Hearsay status of Hood’s alleged admission. Hood’s alleged statement to his wife was an admission by a party opponent and therefore was not hearsay when offered against him.

Conditional relevance and personal knowledge. The trial court improperly excluded the evidence by resolving the wife’s credibility and personal-knowledge issues itself rather than determining whether the evidence was sufficient for a jury reasonably to find that the conversation occurred and that she had personal knowledge of it.

Scope of cross-examination and preservation. Burlington was entitled to cross-examine Hood’s wife about the conversation, to use her prior inconsistent statements if she denied or could not recall it, and to question Hood himself; Burlington adequately preserved the issue by informing the trial court of the substance of the excluded evidence.

Burlington Northern Railroad Company, Petitioner v. Sidney L. Hood, Respondent

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by