|
|
Lindberg v. California Dep't of Education10/31/2005
eptionally well qualified.
The verdict finding liability against Eastin was supported by substantial evidence.
VI. Evidentiary Errors
Defendants posit a number of errors in the admission and exclusion of evidence, which they claim individually and collectively warrant reversal of the judgment.
A. Hearsay Statements As Party Admissions
During the trial, defendants objected several times to the trial court's decision to admit out-of-court statements by CDE employees, on the ground they were party admissions (Evid. Code, § 1221). The gist of their complaint was that, although the declarants were working for CDE at the time, they were in reality CDE's future litigation adversaries and thus did not truly "speak for" CDE. Defendants reiterate this position on appeal.
Except for one statement by Lynn Bartlett alleging fraud in a grant program for the homeless, we deem this contention forfeited because defendants' opening brief does not identify any specific statements erroneously admitted, much less demonstrate how their admission was prejudicial. (Guthrey, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1115; Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1119.) As to the Bartlett statement, we agree with the trial court that since she worked in the compliance division of Adult Education at the time, Bartlett was authorized to voice an opinion on the subject.
In any event, it appears that the harmful effect of these out-of- court statements was negligible in light of the fact that all of the declarants, including Bartlett, had their statements subjected to the full rigors of cross-examination by defense counsel. There was no prejudicial error. (Evid. Code, § 353.)
B. Allowing Witnesses to Be Asked Leading Questions
Defendants complain that Lindberg received unfair advantage when the trial court permitted his attorney to ask leading questions of whistle-blowing witnesses Cervantes and Bartlett under Evidence Code section 776. They insist that because these witnesses were more sympathetic to Lindberg than CDE, the court should not have permitted counsel to ask leading questions.
The point is without merit. First, Dr. Cervantes and Lynn Bartlett, the only employees about whom defendants direct their assignment of error, were in fact employees of an adverse party, CDE, at the time of the events about which they testified. Thus, they qualified for treatment under Evidence Code section 776. (Evid. Code, § 776, subds. (a), (d)(2), (3); Scott v. Del Monte Properties, Inc. (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 756, 759-760 [interpreting former Code Civ. Proc., § 2055 (now Evid. Code, § 776)].)
Second, even if the trial court erred in allowing leading questions, the error was manifestly non-prejudicial. Both witnesses were intelligent and articulate. There is no doubt the jury would have received the substance of their testimony in any e
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Show All Case Laws California PEO
|