Stella et al v. Davis County et al

Filing 156

MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 99 Motion in Limine to Exclude the Attorney General's Declination Letter. Signed by Judge Jill N. Parrish on 3/14/22. (alf)

Case 1:18-cv-00002-JNP-DBP Document 156 Filed 03/14/22 PageID.3372 Page 1 of 4
FILED
2022 MAR 14 PM 2:09
CLERK
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CYNTHIA STELLA and the ESTATE OF
HEATHER MILLER,
v.

Plaintiffs,

DAVIS COUNTY, SHERIFF TODD
RICHARDSON, MAVIN ANDERSON, and
JAMES ONDRICEK,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S
DECLINATION LETTER
Case No. 1:18-cv-00002-JNP-DBP
District Judge Jill N. Parrish
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

Before this court is a motion brought by plaintiffs Cynthia Stella and the Estate of
Heather Miller (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) to prohibit defendants Davis County, Todd
Richardson, Mavin Anderson, and James Ondricek (collectively, “Defendants”) from offering
evidence regarding the Utah Office of the Attorney General’s (“Utah Attorney General”)
charging decision. ECF No. 99.
On April 28, 2017, the Utah Attorney General issued a letter to Troy Rawlings, Davis
County Attorney. ECF No. 99-1. The letter stated that the Utah Attorney General had conducted
an investigation into Heather Miller’s death and concluded that no criminal charges would be
filed. Plaintiffs now move to exclude this letter and any other evidence related to the Utah
Attorney General’s charging decision. Plaintiffs argue that the decision not to pursue criminal
charges results from a different legal standard than the legal standard applied in a civil trial.
Thus, in Plaintiffs’ view, the Utah Attorney General’s decision is irrelevant and has the potential

Case 1:18-cv-00002-JNP-DBP Document 156 Filed 03/14/22 PageID.3373 Page 2 of 4

to confuse the jury into accepting the Utah Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute as
determinative of the civil liability issue.
Defendants counter that precluding use of the declination letter would prejudice their
case. Specifically, Plaintiffs plan to use evidence from the Attorney General’s investigation,
which clearly states that the Attorney General was conducting a criminal investigation.
Defendants argue that, absent the declination letter, the jury will conclude that the investigation
unearthed some unlawful act. To avoid this prejudice, Defendants contend that the court must
permit them to refer to the declination letter. Moreover, Defendants offer a proposed preliminary
instruction regarding investigations by state and municipal agencies to alleviate prejudice.
“As a general rule, evidence that criminal charges were not brought is inadmissible in a
civil case arising out of the same events as the criminal charges.” Goffstein v. State Farm Fire &
Cas. Co., 764 F.2d 522, 524 (8th Cir. 1985) (citing Galbraith v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 464 F.2d
225 (3d Cir. 1972)); see also Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Godsin, 803 F.2d 1153, 1160 (11th Cir.
1986) (“Aetna argued that the different standards of proof between a criminal prosecutorial
decision and a civil case might mislead the jury. We agree.”); Am. Home Assurance Co. v.
Sunshine Supermarket, Inc., 753 F.2d 321, 325 (3d Cir. 1985) (holding that evidence of
nonprosecution is generally inadmissible in a civil trial concerning the same incident).
Just as evidence that a criminal investigation took place may lead to jury speculation as to
the result of the investigation, evidence related to the decision not to charge Defendants
criminally carries a substantial risk of misleading the jury and causing jury speculation as to why
the government declined to bring charges. And evidence of nonprosecution is of limited
probative value because of the higher burden of persuasion in a criminal case and because a
prosecutor exercising her discretion may consider other factors not relevant in a civil case. See

2

Case 1:18-cv-00002-JNP-DBP Document 156 Filed 03/14/22 PageID.3374 Page 3 of 4

Kelly’s Auto Parts, No. 1, Inc. v. Boughton, 809 F.2d 1247, 1252 (6th Cir. 1987). 1 Accordingly,
the court excludes any evidence related to the decision not to charge Defendants criminally,
including the declination letter, under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. See FED. R. EVID. 403
(“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a
danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, [or] misleading
the jury . . . .”).
However, even if the court excludes evidence of nonprosecution, the jury will
nevertheless receive evidence indicating that the Utah Attorney General conducted a criminal
investigation. The court recognizes that evidence of this criminal investigation may lead to jury
speculation as to the result. Accordingly, the court intends to instruct the jury that the result of
that investigation has no relevance to the present civil trial. The jury—not the Utah Attorney
General—is tasked with determining civil liability. The court will accept further arguments on
the specific language of the instruction when it considers jury instructions. Finally, if a party or
witness opens the door by testifying that Defendants broke laws or acted criminally, Defendants
may revisit this issue and request leave to introduce evidence that they were not prosecuted on
charges arising from the accident to rebut such testimony.
Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion in limine.

1

The Third Circuit has helpfully articulated these rationales. First, “criminal and civil trials
require different burdens of proof for proving guilt and liability, respectively.” Johnson v. Elk
Lake Sch. Dist., 283 F.3d 138, 147 (3d Cir. 2002). And second, “prosecutorial discretion may
take into account many other factors not relevant in a civil suit [and a]t best, the evidence of nonprosecution is evidence of an opinion by the prosecutor.” Am. Home Assurance Co., 753 F.2d at
325.
3

Case 1:18-cv-00002-JNP-DBP Document 156 Filed 03/14/22 PageID.3375 Page 4 of 4

DATED March 14, 2022.

BY THE COURT

______________________________
Jill N. Parrish
United States District Court Judge

4