Murray v. Just In Case Business Lighthouse, LLC

Summary

The Colorado Supreme Court held that violating Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(b) does not require automatic exclusion of testimony from an improperly compensated witness; admissibility remains subject to the trial court’s discretion under CRE 403. The court also held that non-expert summary witnesses may testify based on personally reviewed documentary evidence when the evidence is complex and voluminous, but summary exhibits under CRE 1006 may not characterize evidence argumentatively. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, reversing the remand concerning the witness’s testimony and finding the admission of one argumentative chart harmless.

Holdings

1. A violation of an ethical rule does not displace the rules of evidence, and RPC 3.4(b) does not require per se exclusion of testimony from an improperly compensated witness. The trial court may exclude such testimony under CRE 403 when the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Sumner to testify because the danger of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the testimony's probative value.
3. Trial courts may permit non-expert summary testimony when the evidence is sufficiently complex and voluminous that the testimony would assist the trier of fact. In those circumstances, a summary witness may satisfy CRE 602's personal-knowledge requirement by examining the underlying documentary evidence on which the summary testimony is based.
4. Under CRE 1006, summary charts must accurately and nonmisleadingly summarize sufficiently voluminous evidence and may not be embellished with the proponent's argumentative conclusions or inferences. Exhibit 1 was properly admitted because it neutrally organized chronological facts; Exhibit 1.1 was improperly admitted because its headings characterized the evidence argumentatively, but the error was harmless.

Questions Presented

1. Whether violation of RPC 3.4(b) by compensating a witness through a contingent fee requires per se exclusion of the witness's testimony.
2. Whether a non-expert summary witness may testify under CRE 602 based on personal examination of underlying documentary evidence.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under CRE 1006 by admitting summary charts that organized evidence but, in one chart, characterized it in an argumentative manner.
4. Whether the court of appeals properly remanded for the trial court to determine whether Sumner's testimony should be excluded as a sanction for the ethical violation.

Disposition

other