Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 82 views

    Coles V Harsh

    Uploaded by

    Jon Santos
    Plaintiff sued Defendant for alienating the affections of Plaintiff's wife. The social circle they were both part of engaged in wrestling between men and each other's wives. The court found several evidentiary errors were made at trial. It held that improper foundation was laid for impeaching a defense witness. While exclusion of evidence about the wrestling activities was found to be harmless error, Plaintiff could not introduce impeaching questions or additional evidence about collateral matters. The appellate court determined several evidentiary issues needed to be addressed on retrial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Coles V Harsh

    Uploaded by

    Jon Santos
    82 views2 pages
    Plaintiff sued Defendant for alienating the affections of Plaintiff's wife. The social circle they were both part of engaged in wrestling between men and each other's wives. The court found several evidentiary errors were made at trial. It held that improper foundation was laid for impeaching a defense witness. While exclusion of evidence about the wrestling activities was found to be harmless error, Plaintiff could not introduce impeaching questions or additional evidence about collateral matters. The appellate court determined several evidentiary issues needed to be addressed on retrial.

    Original Description:

    ev

    Original Title

    Coles v Harsh

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Plaintiff sued Defendant for alienating the affections of Plaintiff's wife. The social circle they were both part of engaged in wrestling between men and each other's wives. The court found several evidentiary errors were made at trial. It held that improper foundation was laid for impeaching a defense witness. While exclusion of evidence about the wrestling activities was found to be harmless error, Plaintiff could not introduce impeaching questions or additional evidence about collateral matters. The appellate court determined several evidentiary issues needed to be addressed on retrial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    82 views2 pages

    Coles V Harsh

    Uploaded by

    Jon Santos
    Plaintiff sued Defendant for alienating the affections of Plaintiff's wife. The social circle they were both part of engaged in wrestling between men and each other's wives. The court found several evidentiary errors were made at trial. It held that improper foundation was laid for impeaching a defense witness. While exclusion of evidence about the wrestling activities was found to be harmless error, Plaintiff could not introduce impeaching questions or additional evidence about collateral matters. The appellate court determined several evidentiary issues needed to be addressed on retrial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    COLES v.

    HARSH
    Brief Fact Summary. Defendant, Oliver J. Coles, married the former wife of
    Plaintiff, Chester Harsch. Plaintiff sued Defendant for alienating the
    affections of his wife.
    Synosis of !ule of "aw. # series of small evidentiary violations can
    amount to a retrial.
    Facts. Defendant was initially married to Plaintiff$s sister and hung out in
    the same social circles as Plaintiff. One activity of the social circle was the
    wrestling of men with each other$s wives. Plaintiff introduced evidence that
    Defendant$s attention to Plaintiff$s wife was %eyond the norm for their circle,
    and it led to the divorce of Plaintiff and his wife, whom Defendant married
    shortly thereafter.
    &ssue. 'here are several issues resented in this case.
    'he first issue is whether a roer foundation was laid for Plaintiff$s
    imeachment of a defense witness.
    'he second issue is whether it was harmless error to e(clude evidence that
    related to the conduct of the wrestling social circle.
    'he third issue is whether Plaintiff could introduce an imeaching )uestion
    on a collateral matter, or additional evidence of collateral matters.
    Held. 'he court made the following holdings.
    'he foundation was not roer and was irreversi%le error. 'he witness was
    only as*ed whether he remem%ered a conversation without any additional
    foundation.
    'he Court found that the e(clusion of evidence to further demonstrate the
    wrestling activities was no error or harmless error. 'he court reasoned that
    a +uror would tyically understand that the conduct would inflate the
    li*elihood that Defendant and the wife would %ond.
    'he court held that Plaintiff can not )uestion Defendant on a collateral
    matter +ust to catch Defendant in a lie. Further the admission of affidavits
    was not admissi%le.
    Discussion. 'he court delivered a laundry list of evidentiary mishas from
    the lower court. 'he common thread is that evidence urorted to fall under
    one evidentiary ruling will not %e allowed when the evidence is o%viously
    meant to %e more re+udicial than relevant.

    You might also like