QuestionQUESTION: I knew a police report is inadmissible in a court though it maybe helpful. I got a court record that the other driver had been convicted of a traffic violation in a court and paid fine after received a ticket. Should the court record be attached with a personal injury claim? Is the court record sufficient to prove the fault? Thank you for your answer.
ANSWER: Hi Rendy,
You did a good job to learn about the officer's report. Let's review what you learned in case others read this public answer. As for the officer's report, under some circumstances it could be admissible, BUT NOT to prove her decision as to fault. That means if she gave a ticket for negligent driving, the jury does not learn about her opinion.
Why? Well, she is NOT the trier of fact: that is for the judge or jury. All she does is to report facts, NOT an opinion as to who caused the accident.
She can testify as to what she saw when she arrived. She can tell what the parties and the witnesses told her. But she cannot give her opinion as to who was at fault. That is the job of the jury or the judge.
The question as to the evidence that a party paid a traffic ticket goes to the relevance of the information. What does it mean? Does the probative value of this evidence outweigh the risk of misleading the jury? The answer as to paying a traffic ticket is NO, mostly because that piece of information does not tell us anything at all. Paying a ticket cannot be equated with an admission of guilt. Maybe it was more convenient to pay a couple hundred dollars; maybe the person had other commitments of importance and decided to just pay the money even though he knew he could beat the ticket.
Hence, the fact someone elected to pay a ticket instead of taking a day off work to go in and fight it does not tell us anything whatsoever as to whether or not that person was actually guilty of the charge.
No judge anywhere will ever admit into evidence the fact that the tortfeasor did pay a traffic ticket regarding some other incident. That is not probative of his behavior in this accident since it does not prove anything at all. It does not even prove that he was at fault in the first incident. All it proves is that he elected to pay money instead of fighting the ticket.
Even if the ticket were for this accident, and the tortfeasor paid the ticket, no judge will allow that into evidence either. Maybe a person makes so much money that she cannot take time off and decides to pay. Or maybe she was leaving on a trip and decided to pay. Nothing at all can be introduced because it is not relevant evidence.
I trust that my extra time here has produced some information that has been of value to you, and thus I would respectfully request that you take the time to locate the FEEDBACK FORM on this site and leave some feedback for me.
Best Wishes,
Dr. Settlement, J.D. (Juris Doctor)
http://www.SettlementCentral.Com
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Thanks for the input. You sad, “All it proves is that he elected to pay money instead of fighting the ticket. “ It seems to me you put a lot in the paid money. Actually it is not just money but fine. Probably I need to provide you with a little more info on the court record. The court info is regarding to the “Ticket Information Report.” The Disposition is “Guilty By Judge” and Plea is “Guilty.” Fine balance is $XX.00. Is it not sufficient to prove the driver’s fault? If no, I want to know why we see the “Guilty” instead of “Not Guilty.” I wonder what the “Guilty” mean and why you (driver) were ordered to pay so called “FINE” if the driver did not admit the guilty/fault. Can you explain it?
AnswerYes, it does sound tempting to put in evidence, doesn't it? But the word "guilty" means nothing insofar as evidence of the act in question, since the same legal reasoning applies. He chose to plead guilty rather than take the time to go to court and fight it. This is NOT THE SAME as a previous trial on the merits where he PARTICIPATED.
It is akin to a guily plea that does not admit guilt. Like saying I am too busy and I do not wish to contend this charge. That IS NOT EVER BINDING on future contests. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere
We have what we call "res judicata", whereby a finding or disposition at hearing between the parties is binding and cannot be raised again. That is what you are trying to argue. BUT the payment of a fine and admitting to traffic "guilt" does not qualify for the reasons I already gave you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_judicata
Here is what I would do: go ahead and bring the traffic case disposition before the judge and let her deal with it. She is not gonna bite you or anything. And what does it hurt to show it to her?
I trust that my extra time here for a small legal education has produced some information that has been of value to you, and thus I would respectfully request that you take the time to locate the FEEDBACK FORM on this site and leave some feedback for me.
Best Wishes,
Dr. Settlement, J.D. (Juris Doctor)
http://www.SettlementCentral.Com
