Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; May 30, 2001; Florida; State Appellate Court
The case involves Stewart Agency, Inc., which operates Stewart Toyota, appealing a jury verdict that found the company liable for fraud and engaging in unfair or deceptive trade practices. The appellant contends it was prejudiced by the trial court's refusal to allow it to call a key defense witness, Dean Rosenbach, whose video deposition was previously played by the appellees. Rosenbach, a corporate attorney and friend of the dealership's owner, had purchased a 1994 Ford Mustang involved in an accident. After repairs, he attempted to sell the car through Stewart Toyota, where the appellee, Jean Marie Lesueur, encountered the vehicle. Lesueur testified that a salesman guaranteed the car had never been in an accident, a claim she later learned was false. During the trial, the appellee referenced a phone conversation with Rosenbach, alleging he had informed Stewart Toyota that the car had been damaged. When the appellant sought to present Rosenbach's denial of this claim, the court denied both a request for a deposition during lunch and an in-person appearance, labeling the testimony as collateral impeachment. Consequently, the jury ruled in favor of the appellee. The appellate court noted the importance of the right to present evidence and call witnesses as a fundamental due process right in litigation.
Excluding a witness's testimony is a significant measure that should only be applied in exceptional cases. Courts typically permit witness testimony unless it merely duplicates another witness's contributions. Limitations on witness numbers should be communicated to counsel in advance. In this case, the appellee's assertion that the appellant knew about a vehicle's prior accident hinged on her credibility, particularly regarding a conversation with a witness named Rosenbach. If Rosenbach had not communicated with the appellee, it could undermine the claim that the appellant had knowledge of the accident. This evidentiary matter parallels a previous case where the exclusion of a witness's testimony, which could have contradicted a key witness's account, was deemed erroneous and led to a reversal of the conviction. The trial court's classification of the issue as collateral was contested; the conversation with Rosenbach was essential for establishing the appellant’s alleged knowledge. By excluding Rosenbach, the court denied the appellant critical evidence to counter the appellee's claims. Consequently, the court reversed the decision and ordered a new trial, rendering other issues raised moot.
