Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Girard v. Kuklinski
Citations: 1962 Ark. LEXIS 578; 235 Ark. 337; 360 S.W.2d 115Docket: 5-2758
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; September 10, 1962; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
A legal action was brought by Kuklinski and his wife to recover damages for personal injuries and loss of consortium after Kuklinski was struck by a vehicle driven by the appellant, Girard, while stopped at an intersection. The jury awarded Kuklinski $12,000. The appellant contested the introduction of certain evidence during the trial, specifically the testimony of two police officers who asserted that Girard was intoxicated at the time of the accident. One officer improperly testified about placing a charge against Girard for driving under the influence, which was deemed inadmissible since evidence of an arrest or charge without proof of conviction is generally incompetent. Citing relevant legal precedents, the court noted that the mere fact of an arrest does not provide significant insight for the jury and that bolstering testimony, which reinforces a witness's statement, is typically prejudicial. The appellees argued that the charge did not violate the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways because it was filed under a later statute. However, the court determined that the later statute was essentially an amendment of the original act, making the rules regarding the inadmissibility of conviction records applicable. The court expressed concern that the introduction of the charge may have unduly influenced the jury, potentially leading them to infer guilt without Girard being able to adequately defend against that inference. The trial court's conclusion that the inadmissible testimony was invited by Girard’s attorney was rejected, as references to Girard's drinking were permissible, and did not justify the introduction of prejudicial evidence. Ultimately, the court reversed the trial court's decision due to the prejudicial nature of the improperly admitted testimony.