Faunett Evans-Reid, Appellant v. District of Columbia, Appellees (D.C. 2007)

Summary

The court affirmed judgment as a matter of law for the District and the officer in a wrongful-shooting action arising from the death of a fourteen-year-old boy during an investigatory traffic stop. It held that excluding the proposed police-procedure expert and Internal Affairs reports was within the trial court's discretion, and that the admitted evidence did not provide a legally sufficient basis for a jury to find that the officer's use of deadly force was unjustified. The court also concluded that disbelief of the officers' testimony, without affirmative evidence supporting the contrary account, could not defeat the privilege defense.

Holding

Exclusion of expert testimony. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Commander Stanley's testimony because his experience was primarily local and the single national standard on which he relied did not provide guidelines for officer conduct during an investigatory traffic stop or the use of deadly force.

Judgment as a matter of law on the assault-and-battery and negligence claims. Judgment as a matter of law was proper because, even viewing the evidence in the plaintiff's favor, no reasonable jury could find for her without relying on speculation. The officer's testimony, if credited, established an actual and reasonable belief of imminent danger, and the plaintiff presented insufficient affirmative evidence to rebut the qualified privilege for deadly force.

Exclusion of Internal Affairs reports. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the Internal Affairs reports because, even if the reports themselves could qualify as business or public records, the interview statements and reported conversations constituted multiple hearsay and did not fall within the asserted state-of-mind exception.

Faunett Evans-Reid, Appellant v. District of Columbia, Appellees

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by