{
  "id": 6140397,
  "name": "Ruel LOWE, Special Administrator of the Estate of Ira E. Lowe, Deceased v. Mike RALPH and Cleta Ralph, Individually, In Their Own Rights, and As Parents and Next Friends of Tommy A. Ralph, Deceased, and Eric Michael Ralph, Mike Ralph, Individually",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lowe v. Ralph",
  "decision_date": "1998-04-08",
  "docket_number": "CA 97-1056",
  "first_page": "231",
  "last_page": "235",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 Ark. App. 231"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "966 S.W.2d 283"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "291 Ark. 340",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1872713
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/291/0340-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 435,
    "char_count": 7750,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.75,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.392552054677732e-08,
      "percentile": 0.27574213786209156
    },
    "sha256": "31f8796d75e8fa1bc84c7655c5826a6b100d58177d72cd331c7a5604d0f02a69",
    "simhash": "1:be6fe8b0430ea1d0",
    "word_count": 1276
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:49:17.261540+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Arey and Stroud, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Ruel LOWE, Special Administrator of the Estate of Ira E. Lowe, Deceased v. Mike RALPH and Cleta Ralph, Individually, In Their Own Rights, and As Parents and Next Friends of Tommy A. Ralph, Deceased, and Eric Michael Ralph, Mike Ralph, Individually"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Andree Layton Roaf, Judge.\nThis is an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of the appellees, who were plaintiffs in a negligence case. The jury found that Ira Lowe, deceased, was negligent in causing the death of the appellees\u2019 sixteen-year-old son in an automobile accident, and awarded $500,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. The punitive damages were awarded based upon willful and wanton conduct by Lowe, who was intoxicated when the accident occurred. The appellant\u2019s sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of one of his witnesses because of violation of the rule of sequestration. We agree that the trial court erred, and reverse and remand.\nOn a rainy day in April 1993, Ira Lowe and Tommy Ralph were involved in an automobile accident. Ralph was killed instantly when his car struck Lowe\u2019s vehicle. Lowe and one of Ralph\u2019s passengers, Jamie Owens Mooney, were injured and were transported to the hospital for medical treatment.\nRalph\u2019s parents, Mike and Cleta Ralph, subsequently filed suit against Lowe. Some time after the commencement of the lawsuit, Lowe died, and the action was continued against his estate. At trial, there was evidence that Lowe was intoxicated, and there was also testimony that Ralph had been \u201cgoofing off\u2019 immediately prior to the accident by jerking the steering wheel back and forth. There was also testimony that Ralph\u2019s car hydroplaned and he lost control of the car before hitting Lowe. In a deposition taken before he died, Lowe testified that he pulled off onto the shoulder of the road and stopped when he saw Ralph\u2019s car coming towards him. However, there was conflicting testimony at trial as to whether Lowe\u2019s vehicle was straddling the center line of the road when the accident occurred, or completely in his own lane of traffic.\nMooney testified at trial. She stated that Lowe\u2019s car was stopped in the middle of the road at the time of the accident. Mooney was the only witness who placed Lowe in the center of the road at the moment of impact. Trooper Jerry Roberts, one of the officers at the scene of the accident, also testified. He stated that, based on his observation of the final resting place of the vehicles, the location of debris and scuff and gouge marks on the road surface, the accident occurred in Lowe\u2019s lane of traffic.\nRoberts was later recalled, and during his direct examination, one of Lowe\u2019s witnesses, Anita Kramers, heard approximately thirty minutes of his testimony before Lowe\u2019s attorney became aware she was in the courtroom. Lowe\u2019s attorney immediately interrupted the proceedings and informed the court of her presence. Ralph\u2019s attorney then objected to allowing her to testify because she violated Ark. R. Evid. 615, the witness sequestration rule. The trial court ruled that although her actions were innocent, he had no discretion in the matter and was required by law to exclude her testimony. Kramers\u2019 testimony was then proffered for the record. Her testimony directly contradicted that of Mooney. In her proffer, she stated that she was the emergency medical technician who transported Lowe and Mooney to the hospital after the accident. She stated that, at the hospital, Mooney told her that Ralph had been \u201cgoofing off\u2019 when his car hydroplaned, Ralph lost control of the car, crossed the center line, and hit Lowe\u2019s car. Kramers further stated that Mooney admitted that the accident was Ralph\u2019s fault and not Lowe\u2019s fault. At the close of all the evidence, the jury found in favor of Ralph and awarded damages.\nLowe\u2019s sole point on appeal is the trial court committed reversible error when it excluded Kramers\u2019 testimony. He asserts that her testimony was crucial in that it would have impeached Mooney\u2019s testimony. He contends that the trial court has only very limited discretion to exclude the testimony, and should have utilized other available sanctions. We agree.\nRule 615 of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence provides:\nAt the request of a party the court shah order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and it may make the order of its own motion. This rule does not authorize exclusion of (1) a party who is a natural person, or (2) an officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney, or (3) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of his cause.\nRule 615 was invoked upon oral motion by Lowe, and Kramers violated the sequestration rule when she sat in the courtroom and listened to a portion of Trooper Roberts\u2019 testimony.\nBoth parties assert that Blaylock v. Strecker, 291 Ark. 340, 724 S.W.2d 470 (1987), is controlling. We agree that it is controlling, and further conclude that it mandates reversal of this case. Blaylock involved a tort action for alienation of affection. The appellant was sued for allegedly engaging appellee\u2019s wife in a homosexual relationship. Following appellee\u2019s opening statement, his daughter approached opposing counsel and stated that she wanted to testify because the appellee\u2019s opening statement was untrue concerning appellant\u2019s conduct toward the couple\u2019s children. The daughter was called as a witness, however, the trial court excluded her testimony because of violation of Rule 615. The supreme court reversed, stating that the three possible methods of enforcement available to the trial judge when a violation of the sequestration rule has occurred are: (1) citing the witness for contempt; (2) permitting comment on the witness\u2019s noncompliance in order to reflect on her credibility; and (3) refusing to allow her testify. In addition, the court stated that the trial court has very narrow discretion in refusing to allow the testimony of a witness who violates the rule, and the discretion can only be exercised when the noncompliance occurs with the consent, connivance, or procurement by a party or his attorney. The court stated that since the daughter was an important witness, as conceded by both parties, it was not harmless error to exclude her testimony.\nIn Lowe\u2019s case, there was no evidence of the consent, connivance, or procurement by appellant or his attorney. In fact, Lowe\u2019s attorney immediately informed the court when he learned that Kramers was present in the courtroom. His attorney asserted that Kramers heard no testimony that was pertinent to her own testimony, which was impeachment testimony. During voir dire, Kramers testified that she was unaware that she was not to be in the courtroom, and that when she arrived at the courthouse, someone from the clerk\u2019s office had told her to go in the courtroom. Moreover, the trial court stated that Kramers\u2019 actions were absolutely innocent and unintentional, and there was no allegation of any misconduct by the appellant or his attorney. Finally, the testimony of Kramers contradicts the testimony of Mooney, the only witness who placed Lowe\u2019s car in the center of the road. The exclusion of her testimony was clearly prejudicial to Lowe. Under the circumstances, it was reversible error for the trial court to exclude Kramers\u2019 testimony, and we reverse and remand for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.\nArey and Stroud, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Andree Layton Roaf, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Huckabay, Munson, Rowlett & Tilley, P.A., by: Bruce Munson and Julia Busjield, for appellant.",
      "Milligan Law Offices, by: Phillip J. Milligan, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ruel LOWE, Special Administrator of the Estate of Ira E. Lowe, Deceased v. Mike RALPH and Cleta Ralph, Individually, In Their Own Rights, and As Parents and Next Friends of Tommy A. Ralph, Deceased, and Eric Michael Ralph, Mike Ralph, Individually\nCA 97-1056\n966 S.W.2d 283\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered April 8, 1998\nHuckabay, Munson, Rowlett & Tilley, P.A., by: Bruce Munson and Julia Busjield, for appellant.\nMilligan Law Offices, by: Phillip J. Milligan, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0231-01",
  "first_page_order": 255,
  "last_page_order": 259
}