Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Police Officers (Ds) had P taken by ambulance to a hospital and that the hospital recorded that P was intoxicated, combative, and violent. P asserts that he was not incapacitated by alcohol consumption but that Ds had wrongfully assaulted and seized him. Ds assert that P was intoxicated and combative, and deny that they assaulted him. Ds have submitted P's medical records for the date of the incident and two follow-up visits. They also submitted the medical records for one earlier date and three later dates which reflect the treatment of P for intoxication. Ds seek to admit the medical records to show the plaintiff's chronic alcohol abuse. They contend evidence of his alcohol abuse is relevant to the jury's evaluation not only of his conduct on June 1, 2014, when he interacted with Ds, but also to his claim for damages, his credibility, and his ability to perceive and recall events. Ds assert they are admissible as similar act evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b) to demonstrate P's knowledge of his dangerous conduct when intoxicated. They also assert they are admissible as habit evidence, to show that P has a habit of drinking to the point that he is combative, incoherent, and requires hospitalization. P objects to the admission of any records for dates other than June 1 and 2, 2014.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.