All,
I’m sharing an interesting, published opinion from Judge Carnes in Sowers v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 18-11901, 2020 WL 5523203, at *2 (11th Cir. Sept. 15, 2020). The case serves as a reminder of both the importance of pre-trial motion in limine practice and the significant discretion trial judges have when admitting or excluding evidence.
By way of brief recap, Mrs. Sowers, the plaintiff, sued the cigarette manufacturer R.J. Reynolds under Florida’s wrongful death statute. She argued that the company was liable for the death of her husband, who had smoked one to three packs of cigarettes a day for about fifty years. Mrs. Sowers and her late husband had a rocky marriage. The couple had married in 1944, divorced in 1969, and remarried in 1972. During her deposition, Ms. Sowers testified about their marital discord, discussing both her husband’s infidelity, his struggles with alcoholism, and their divorce and remarriage.
Before trial, Mrs. Sowers moved to exclude testimony about her husband’s infidelity and the couple’s divorce and remarriage. She argued that the evidence was both irrelevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 402 and unduly prejudicial under Rule 403. In response, R.J. Reynolds argued that the evidence was relevant to “damages, addiction, and causation, and was necessary to rebut Mrs. Sowers’ testimony about the length of the marriage and how long Mr. Sowers had smoked.” The trial judge excluded the evidence, holding that it was both irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, relying on the 403-aspect of the trial judge’s ruling. The Eleventh Circuit noted the judge’s “range of discretion” in deciding whether to admit or exclude evidence. It also noted that the jury did hear evidence about Mr. Sowers’s alcoholism and how it had impacted the marriage. The Court reasoned:
“Of course, evidence of the Sowers’ marital discord, though far in the couple’s past and more than 20 years before he died, might have affected to some extent how the jury viewed Mrs. Sowers’ testimony about her husband. And it might have given the jury a fuller understanding of the couple’s many years of life together. But that does not mean that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial impact. The evidence the jury did hear about Mr. Sowers’ long history of alcohol abuse and how it harmed the marriage diminished the probative value that the excluded evidence of the couple’s temporary and long ago “unmarriage” might have otherwise had. ‘[W]hat counts as the Rule 403 probative value of an item of evidence, as distinct from its Rule 401 ‘relevance,’ may be calculated by comparing evidentiary alternatives.’ Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 184, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997). And the danger that the evidence would cause ‘unfair prejudice’ within the meaning of Rule 403 is obvious. The court’s ruling is within the range of discretion district courts are allowed in evidentiary matters.”
Sowers, 2020 WL 5523203, at *6.
For those who practice in the wrongful death arena, the case is good reminder to file motions in limine before trial. Trial court evidentiary calls will rarely be second-guessed on appeal.
You can read the full opinion by clicking on the link below.
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/18-11901/18-11901-2020-09-15.pdf?ts=1600183860
