Travelers Fire Insurance Co. v. Wright
322 P.2d 417 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Testimony given in a prior criminal trial by a now-unavailable witness is admissible in a subsequent civil trial if the party against whom the testimony is offered had an adequate opportunity and similar motive to cross-examine the witness in the criminal proceeding, and the testimony addresses a substantially identical issue.
Facts:
- J. B. Wright and J. C. Wright were business partners who held two fire insurance policies with the defendant insurance companies.
- The insured partnership property was destroyed by a fire.
- The Wrights filed a claim, but the insurance companies refused to pay, alleging that J. B. Wright intentionally set the fire.
- Previously, J. B. Wright had been prosecuted in a criminal case for arson related to the same fire.
- During that criminal trial, witnesses Wm. Holland Eppler and Albert Brown testified that J. B. Wright had procured their help in burning the property.
Procedural Posture:
- J. B. Wright and J. C. Wright sued the defendant fire insurance companies in an Oklahoma trial court to recover on their insurance policies.
- At trial, key witnesses for the defendants refused to testify, claiming their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.
- The defendants offered transcripts of these witnesses' testimony from a prior criminal arson trial against J. B. Wright, but the trial court excluded the evidence.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, the Wrights, for $20,000.
- The trial court entered judgment on the verdict for the plaintiffs.
- The defendant insurance companies, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
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 excluding testimony from a prior criminal arson trial in a subsequent civil insurance fraud case, where the testimony is offered against one of the same parties from the criminal case, and the witnesses have become unavailable by invoking their privilege against self-incrimination?
Opinions:
Majority - Jackson, Justice
Yes. The trial court erred by excluding the prior testimony. Testimony from a criminal case is admissible in a subsequent civil case when the witness is unavailable, there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination by a party with a similar motive and interest, and the issue is substantially the same. Here, the witnesses were rendered unavailable by claiming their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. J.B. Wright had the opportunity and a strong motive to cross-examine them in his criminal trial to disprove the same allegation of arson at issue in this civil case. The requirement for identity of parties is satisfied because J.B. Wright's interest in the criminal cross-examination was aligned with his and his partner's interest in the civil case, thus adequately protecting the rights of both plaintiffs. This court explicitly overrules its prior contrary holding in Concordia Fire Insurance Co. v. Wise.
Dissenting - Corn, V. C. J., and Blackbird, J.
No answer or reasoning provided in the text, only that they dissented.
Analysis:
This decision significantly liberalizes the rules for admitting former testimony in Oklahoma by shifting from a strict 'identity of parties' requirement to a more flexible 'identity of motive and interest' standard for cross-examination. It aligns Oklahoma with the majority of jurisdictions and the principles advocated by evidence scholar Wigmore. The ruling clarifies that the focus should be on the functional adequacy of the prior cross-examination to ensure fairness, rather than on the formal alignment of the parties in both proceedings. This precedent makes it easier to use testimony from related criminal proceedings in subsequent civil litigation, preventing parties from benefiting from a witness's later unavailability.
