Rusheen

Rusheen v. Drews

Good Law
120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 769·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4231·2002 Daily Journal DAR 6623·99 Cal. App. 4th 279·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5249
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 12, 2002B146415California3,371 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

Plaintiff Terry Rusheen brought an action for fraud, conversion and negligent misrepresentation against Colleen Elizabeth Drews and her parents, Elmer and Elizabeth Drews. The jury awarded Rusheen $500 in general damages against Colleen Drews. It found no liability on her parents’ part. Rusheen appeals from the judgment on the ground the damages were inadequate. He contends he would have received a greater award of general damages and an award of punitive damages had the trial court not erroneously excluded from the trial evidence of defendant Colleen Drews’s plea of nolo contendere to felony grand theft of the same automobile which is the subject of this action.

We agree the trial court erred in excluding evidence of Drews’s nolo plea. A defendant’s plea of nolo contendere to an offense punishable as a felony, regardless of whether it is ultimately so punished, is admissible as a party admission in a civil action based upon or growing out of the act upon which the criminal prosecution is based. Furthermore, the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of the plea under Evidence Code section 352. These errors, however, only affected Drews’s potential…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.