AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The case arose from an incident at Clovis High Plains Hospital in July 1986, where the Plaintiff, a nurse, alleged that the Defendant, an orthopedic surgeon, jabbed her in the back with a sharp osteotome (bone chisel) during a disagreement over surgical instruments.

Procedural History

• District Court of Curry County: Granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Defendant on the assault claim and ruled in favor of the Defendant on the remaining claims after a jury trial.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the assault claim, excluding evidence of the Defendant's character and size/strength differences, allowing late-disclosed witnesses to testify, excluding deposition and taped testimony of a witness, refusing to admit a polygraph tape, permitting conclusory remarks in the Defendant's opening statement, and failing to instruct the jury on assault.
• Defendant-Appellee: Defended the trial court's rulings, arguing that the Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to support her claims and that the trial court acted within its discretion in its evidentiary and procedural rulings.

Legal Issues

• Did the trial court err in granting partial summary judgment on the assault claim?
• Was the exclusion of evidence regarding the Defendant's character and size/strength differences proper?
• Did the trial court err in allowing late-disclosed witnesses to testify?
• Was the exclusion of the deposition and taped testimony of a witness justified?
• Did the trial court err in refusing to admit a polygraph tape?
• Was it improper for the Defendant to make conclusory remarks in the opening statement?
• Did the trial court err in refusing to instruct the jury on assault?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's rulings on all issues.

Reasons

Per Chavez J. (Bivins and Flores JJ. concurring):

• Assault Claim: The Plaintiff failed to provide evidence that she felt fear of imminent harm before the alleged touching, which is a necessary element of assault. The trial court properly granted summary judgment on this issue.
• Character Evidence: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of the Defendant's character, as it was not directly at issue and was inadmissible under evidentiary rules prohibiting character evidence to show conformity.
• Size/Strength Testimony: The exclusion of testimony regarding size and strength differences was within the trial court's discretion, as it was deemed more prejudicial than probative, and the jury could observe the parties' physical differences in court.
• Late-Disclosed Witnesses: The Defendant disclosed the witnesses within the time allowed by the pre-trial order, and there was no evidence of bad faith or prejudice to the Plaintiff. The trial court did not err in allowing their testimony.
• Deposition and Taped Testimony: The unsigned deposition and tape recording were properly excluded due to procedural deficiencies and lack of measures to ensure accuracy and trustworthiness.
• Polygraph Tape: The trial court correctly excluded the polygraph tape, as its admission required professional interpretation, which was not provided.
• Opening Statement: The Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the Defendant's opening statement had any probable effect on the trial's outcome.
• Jury Instruction on Assault: Since the assault claim was dismissed at summary judgment, the trial court correctly refused to instruct the jury on this issue.