Murphy v. Bonanno
663 A.2d 505, 1995 WL 461989, 1995 D.C. App. LEXIS 154 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a party seeks to impeach a witness by cross-examining them about prior specific acts of misconduct not resulting in a conviction, the trial court cannot exclude the inquiry on relevance grounds if the acts are probative of truthfulness. Once deemed relevant, the court must then exercise its discretion to balance the probative value of the evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice.
Facts:
- Brian Murphy and Elizabeth Murphy were married in 1976 but became estranged in the mid-1980s.
- In 1990, Ms. Murphy sometimes resided with her friend, Diane M. Bonanno.
- On the evening of June 21, 1990, Ms. Murphy was staying at Bonanno's home.
- According to Ms. Murphy and Bonanno, Mr. Murphy burst into the house carrying a shotgun, threw Ms. Murphy onto a table, put the gun in her stomach, and screamed obscenities at her and Bonanno.
- According to Mr. Murphy, he went to the house carrying only a tape recorder to confront his wife, knocked and was let in, and argued with his wife, who then stumbled and fell on her own.
- Mr. Murphy denied carrying any weapons into the house or assaulting either woman, stating he entered Bonanno's room at her invitation.
Procedural Posture:
- Diane Bonanno and Elizabeth Murphy filed a civil complaint against Brian Murphy in Superior Court.
- Mr. Murphy filed a counterclaim against Ms. Murphy and Bonanno.
- At a jury trial, the trial judge dismissed Mr. Murphy's counterclaims and several of the plaintiffs' claims.
- The jury returned a verdict for Bonanno on her claims of assault and battery and trespass, and for Ms. Murphy on her claims of assault and battery and infliction of emotional distress, awarding damages.
- Mr. Murphy's post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial was denied by the trial court.
- Mr. Murphy (appellant) appealed the judgment in favor of both Bonanno (appellee) and Ms. Murphy to the D.C. Court of Appeals.
- Prior to the appellate decision, Mr. Murphy and Ms. Murphy settled, and the appeal as to Ms. Murphy was dismissed.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court err by categorically excluding, on grounds of irrelevance, cross-examination of a witness regarding prior specific acts of misconduct that are probative of the witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness?
Opinions:
Majority - Farrell, Associate Judge
Yes, a trial court errs by categorically excluding such cross-examination on relevance grounds. A witness may be cross-examined on a prior bad act not resulting in a conviction where the examiner has a factual predicate and the act bears directly upon the witness's veracity. The proffered evidence of Ms. Murphy's alleged false financial statements, fraudulent insurance claims, and threat of a lawsuit to settle a debt are all probative of her character for truthfulness and are therefore relevant. The trial judge incorrectly excluded this evidence as merely showing the witness was 'litigious' and failed to exercise his discretion to balance the probative value of the impeachment evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or harassment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the proper two-step analysis for admitting impeachment evidence of prior bad acts in the District of Columbia. It clarifies that acts demonstrating a willingness to be dishonest, such as filing false claims, are highly relevant to witness credibility and cannot be summarily dismissed. The ruling serves as a crucial check on trial court discretion, mandating that judges engage in a deliberate balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect rather than using irrelevance as a categorical bar. This precedent ensures that juries are more likely to hear evidence critical to assessing witness veracity, impacting how trial strategies around witness impeachment are formed in future civil and criminal cases.
