The Admissibility of a Party's Financial Status
| Publication year | 2010 |
| Pages | 37 |
| Citation | Vol. 39 No. 11 Pg. 37 |
2010, November, Pg. 37. The Admissibility of a Party's Financial Status
November 2010
Vol. 39, No. 11 [Page 37]
Evidence articles are presented in a hypothetical format, addressing legal issues of particular import to trial lawyers. Readers who are interested in submitting an article should contact the Coordinating Editor.
Coordinating Editor
Lawrence M. Zavadil-(303) 389-4644, lzavadil@jcfkk.com
About the Author
Christina L. Dixon is an associate with The Waltz Law Firm-cdixon@waltzlaw.com.
Q: Is a party's financial status admissible?
A: Statements concerning the financial status of a party or creating the inference of an absence of insurance generally are not admissible because they have little or no probative value, are inflammatory, and may appeal to the sympathy of the jury.
Assumed Facts
Joe Injured is involved in an automobile accident and files a personal injury action against the other driver. Joe seeks recovery of his medical costs, as well as damages for his emotional distress. He attempts to introduce testimony that he is a single father whose credit rating has been damaged because he has not been able to pay his medical bills. He also has a car payment and rent he is barely able to pay since he lost his job. The attorney for the other driver objects, arguing that such evidence is inadmissible. How should the court rule?
Discussion
As a general rule, it is error to admit evidence of a party's financial condition, whether it is evidence of wealth or poverty.(fn1) Consistent with this general rule, in Colorado, a party's net worth or income cannot be considered in a civil action to determine the appropriateness or amount of punitive or exemplary damages that may be recoverable.(fn2)
Whether a party's financial condition is admissible begins with an analysis of Colorado Rule of Evidence (C.R.E.) 403. This rule gives the trial court discretion to exclude evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. . . ."(fn3) The mere potential of damaging a party's case does not mean evidence is unfairly prejudicial-relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial. Rather, evidence may be excluded as unfairly prejudicial if it has an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper...
To continue reading
Request your trial