Peralta v. State ( 2017 )

/F·I~I:E"
" IN CLERICS OFFICE '
IUPfteME COURT, STATE Of Wr~
I..-... DATE FEB 1 lOll
~---taAJ\ ~v\.191 Wash. App. 931, 949, 366 P.3d
45 (2015). The court concluded that Peralta's admission did not satisfy the standard
for intoxication under the intoxication defense statute. /d. at 948-49. It further
concluded that this error was harmful because the jury was not allowed to consider
the testimony of Peralta's friend that Peralta did not appear intoxicated the night of the
accident. /d. The Court of Appeals also concluded that jury instruction 20 was error
and harmful for the same reasons. /d. at 949. The Court of Appeals identified three
other evidentiary errors but did not decide whether these errors were prejudicial to
Peralta. /d. at 951-54.
Both Peralta and WSP appealed the Court of Appeals' decision. Peralta
appealed the Court of Appeals' decision to remand for a new trial; Peralta argued she
should have judgment for her proportionate share of the damages found by the jury.
We denied Peralta's petition for review. WSP cross petitioned to overturn the Court of
4
Peralta v. State of Wash. and Wash. State Patrol, No. 92675-1
Appeals' determination that Peralta's admission did not satisfy the required proof for
intoxication under the intoxication defense statute. This court granted review of WSP's
cross petition.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
"The standard of review for evidentiary rulings made by the trial court is abuse
of discretion." City of Spokane v. Neff, 152 Wash. 2d 85, 91, 93 P.3d 158 (2004). 4 We will
reverse a trial court's evidentiary ruling '"only when no reasonable person would take
the view adopted by the trial court."' State v. Ellis, 136 Wash. 2d 498, 504, 963 P.2d 843
(1998) (quoting State v. Castellanos, 132 Wash. 2d 94, 97, 935 P.2d 1353 (1997)).
We recognize that the trial court's ruling establishing the conclusive effect of
Peralta's admission also made its way into the jury instruction. We review jury
instructions de novo. See State v. Johnson, 180 Wash. 2d 295, 301, 325 P.3d 135 (2014).
ANALYSIS
I. Admission Ruling Not an Abuse of Discretion
We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that
Peralta's admission satisfied the standard for intoxication under the intoxication
4
We note that the Court of Appeals applied a de novo standard of review to this case. See Peralta,
191 Wash. App. at 945. We disagree with the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the meaning of
Peralta's admission was a question of law or an application of the law to the facts. See id. Instead,
the trial court was interpreting Peralta's admission made during discovery, and thus its decision
was a discovery or evidentiary ruling. Since the trial court's ruling treated the fact of Peralta's
intoxication as established, we treat the appeal as one dealing with an evidentiary ruling. Whether
we consider the trial court's action an evidentiary or discovery ruling, the appropriate standard is
abuse of discretion. See Cede// v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 176 Wash. 2d 686, 694, 295 P.3d 239
(2013) ("We review a trial court's discovery orders for abuse of discretion.").
5
Peralta v. State of Wash. and Wash. State Patrol, No. 92675-1
defense statute. In context, the meaning of Peralta's admission was not ambiguous.
We thus hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ruled that Peralta
admitted she was intoxicated for purposes of the intoxication defense statute. Nor was
it error to incorporate this ruling into jury instruction 20.
Even if we treat Peralta's admission as ambiguous, the trial court still did not
abuse its discretion when it gave the admission conclusive effect. CR 36 governs
requests for admissions and the answers to them. The rule required Peralta to qualify
her answer to reflect her intention to admit that she was under the influence to a
degree less than the statutory standard. Otherwise, her admission to being under the
influence was conclusively established unless she moved to amend or withdraw her
admission. Peralta neither qualified nor moved to withdraw or amend her admission.
A. The Purpose of CR 36
CR 36(a) permits parties to serve requests for admissions to opposing parties
to establish the truth of "statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to
fact." The purpose of CR 36 "is to eliminate from controversy factual matters that will
not be disputed at trial." Thompson v. King Feed & Nutrition Serv., Inc., 153 Wash. 2d
447, 460, 105 P.3d 378 (2005) (plurality opinion). The greatest benefit of CR 36
admissions is trial efficiency:
Such admissions
"promote both efficiency and economy in resolving disputes. If a
point is conceded, litigants need not expend effort in investigations
concerning it nor incur expense in presenting evidence to prove it.
Judicial administration is also aided. Admissions reduce the time
required to try a case. Indeed, they often make summary judgment
possible. Finally, admissions encourage litigants to evaluate
6
Peralta v. State of Wash. and Wash. State Patrol, No. 92675-1
realistically the hazards of trial, and thus tend to promote
settlements."
Lakes v. von der Mehden, 117 Wash. App. 212, 218, 70 P.3d 154 (2003) (quoting SA
CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2252, at 522 (2d
ed. 1994)).
CR 36 places relatively few requirements on parties requesting admissions. It
requires requesting parties merely to attach relevant documents to their request, and
to separately set forth each matter they seek admitted. CR 36(a). In contrast, the rule
places several requirements on responding parties regarding when and how they
must respond to requests. Of particular interest here, the rule states, "[W]hen good
faith requires that a party qualify his answer or deny only a part of the matter of which
an admission is requested, the party shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify
or deny the remainder." /d. (emphasis added).
Under CR 36, matters admitted are "conclusively established unless the court
on motion permits withdrawal or amendment." CR 36(b) (emphasis added); see also
WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 471 (2002) (defining "conclusive"
as "putting an end to debate or question esp[ecially] by reason of irrefutability").
B. The Standard for Intoxication under RCW 5.40.060, the Intoxication Defense
Statute
We now turn to the intoxication defense statute, the affirmative defense pleaded
by WSP and to which Peralta's admission was applied. The intoxication defense
statute provides a complete defense to an action for personal injury when the person
7
Peralta v. State of Wash. and Wash. State Patrol, No. 92675-1
injured "was under the influence of intoxicating liquor" at the time of the injury. 5 RCW
5.40.060. To determine if an individual was "under the influence of intoxicating liquor,"
the intoxication defense statute incorporates by reference the definition of "under the
influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs" in RCW 46.61.502, the DUI statute.
RCW 5.40.060(1 ). Under the facts here, the DUI statute defines "under the influence
of intoxicating liquor" in two ways: subsection (1 )(a), a blood alcohol concentration of
at least 0.08 within two hours of driving, or subsection (1 )(c), driving a vehicle while
"under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor." RCW 46.61.502. The parties
focus on the meaning of the latter definition.
On first review, the standard under RCW 46.61.502(1 )(c) appears tautological:
A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating
liquor, marijuana, or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this
state:
... While the person is under the influence of or affected by
intoxicating liquor, marijuana, or any drug ....
Literally read, the statute says driving under the influence of intoxicants means driving
under the influence of intoxicants. But we have given substance to subsection (1 )(c)
through case law. In State v. Hurd, we recognized that "[t]he phrase 'under the
influence of intoxicating liquor' ... has been defined as any influence which lessens
in any appreciable degree the ability of the accused to handle his automobile."
5The defense also requires the injured person's intoxication to be a proximate cause of the injury
and the injured person to be more than 50 percent at fault. RCW 5.40.060(1 ). Neither of those
two elements are at issue in this court, but may be at issue on remand to the Court of Appeals.
8
Peralta v. State of Wash. and Wash. State Patrol, No. 92675-1
5 Wash. 2d 308, 315, 105 P.2d 59 (1940). We did not explicitly adopt that definition in
Hurd, instead noting that "'so far as this case is concerned [the phrase] means an
abnormal mental or physical condition due to the influence of alcoholic liquors, a
visible impairment of the judgment or a derangement, or impairment of mental or
physical functions or energies arising therefrom."' /d. at 316.
In subsequent case law, we adopted a definition that closely resembled our
language in Hurd:
"For the purposes of this case, the defendant may be said to have
been either 'under the influence of' or 'affected by' intoxicating liquor, if,
at the time of the alleged unlawful operation of his automobile, evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt establishes that intoxicating liquor has so far
affected his nervous system, brain, or muscles, so as to impair, to an
appreciable degree, his ability to operate his car in the manner that an
ordinary prudent and cautious man, in the full possession of his faculties,
using reasonable care, would operate or drive a similar vehicle under like
circumstances."
State v. Engstrom, 79 Wash. 2d 469, 474, 487 P.2d 205 (1971) (quoting jury instruction).
A similar definition of "under the influence" may be found in our Court of Appeals'
jurisprudence. See, e.g., State v. Arndt, 179 Wash. App. 373, 386, 320 P.3d 104 (2014)
("In Washington, a person is under the influence of or affected by the use of
intoxicating liquor 'if the person's ability to drive a motor vehicle is lessened in any
appreciable degree."' (emphasis added) (quoting 11A WASHINGTON PRACTICE:
WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 92.1 0, at 286 (3d ed. 2008) (since
withdrawn)). There is also a comparable definition in 6 Washington Practice:
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions: Civi/16.04 (6th ed. 2012): "A person is under
the influence of [alcohol] ... if, as a result of using [alcohol] ... , the person's ability
9
Peralta v. State of Wash. and Wash. State Patrol, No. 92675-1
to act as a reasonably careful person under the same or similar circumstances is
lessened in any appreciable degree." (First and third alteration in original.)
In the present case, the trial court instructed the jury with a definition of "under
the influence" resembling the civil pattern instruction. The instruction, proposed by
Peralta, stated, "A person is under the influence of alcohol if, as a result of using
alcohol, the person's ability to act as a reasonably careful person under the same or
similar circumstances is lessened in any appreciable degree." Thus, the definition of
"under the influence" in the present case corresponds to the standard under RCW
46.61.502(1 )(c).
C. Admission Was Not Ambiguous
With this background, we determine if the trial court abused its discretion with
regard to Peralta's admission. When determining whether the trial court abused its
discretion, we must decide whether Peralta's admission to being under the influence
is ambiguous. We conclude that her admission was not ambiguous. In making this
determination, it is crucial to consider the admission's context. See) e.g., Home Street}
Inc. v. DepYofRevenue, 166 Wn.2d 444,457, 210 P.3d 297 (2009) (emphasizing the
importance of analyzing the context of a statute when examining the ambiguity of
statutory language). When considering the context of Peralta's admission, we
conclude the meaning of Peralta's admission was not ambiguous for two reasons.
First, the request for admission is clearly related to WSP's defense; the
language in the request for admission mirrors the language in the intoxication defense
statute. It is also nearly identical to the language of the DUI statute. WSP was not
required to use the specific language Peralta insists on, which would have specified
10
Peralta v. State of Wash. and Wash. State Patrol, No. 92675-1
the legal ramifications of the admission. See State v. Leach, 113 Wash. 2d 679, 695-96,
782 P.2d 552 (1989) (rejecting an argument that a charging document violated due
process when it listed the offense charged as '"DWI,"' the acronym for "'Driving While
Intoxicated,"' instead of listing the charge as "'driving while under the influence of
intoxicating liquor or any drug'"). As the trial court stated, "[W]e've got [a] request for
admissions propounded by highly trained counsel, responded to by highly trained
counsel[,] and intoxication was pleaded as an affirmative defense .... I believe that
she ought to be bound by her admission that she's under the influence."
Second, the purpose of WSP's request for admission was for its affirmative
defense, not to establish another concept that had no legal significance. WSP notified
Peralta of its intent to use the intoxication defense statute as an affirmative defense
in its answer to her complaint. Peralta's response to WSP's request for admission was
under the direction of highly trained legal counsel who should have known the full
legal effect of the admission: namely, the effect that her unqualified admission would
be conclusively established unless she moved to withdraw or amend it. See CR 36(b).
When holding other parties' admissions conclusive, other courts have propounded a
similar rationale:
"[An answer to a request for admission is] a studied response, made
under sanctions against easy denials .... [R]equests for admission ...
are normally made under the direction and supervision of counsel, who
has full professional realization of their significance. Therefore, ... their
effect [should not be reduced] from conclusive admissions to merely
evidential ones."
Airco Indus. Gases, Inc. v. Teamsters Health & Welfare Pension Fund, 850 F.2d 1028,
1036 (3d Cir. 1988) (emphasis omitted) (quoting McSparran v. Hanigan, 225 F. Supp.
11
Peralta v. State of Wash. and Wash. State Patrol, No. 92675-1
628, 636-37 (E.D. Pa. 1963)). This result is consistent with the language of CR 36.
Because Peralta's admission to being under the influence was not ambiguous in this
context, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that
Peralta was bound by her admission. 6 Because we hold that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion regarding Peralta's admission, the trial court also did not err when
it gave jury instruction 20 reflecting this fact. For these reasons, we reverse the Court
of Appeals. 7
D. If Admission Was Ambiguous
For the reasons stated above, Peralta's admission was not ambiguous in this
context. Yet, we recognize that both Peralta and WSP advance reasonable
interpretations of the phrase "under the influence." Even if we treat Peralta's
admission as ambiguous, we conclude the trial court still did not abuse its discretion
when it gave conclusive effect to Peralta's admission.
6We note without comment that WSP offered substantial evidence supporting its intoxication
defense. The jury agreed that Peralta's intoxication was a proximate cause of her injuries and that
she was more than 50 percent at fault. No party challenges the admission as completely lacking
evidentiary support.
7 Peralta now argues that jury instruction 21, which explained the standard for being under the
influence, combined with jury instruction 20, may have misled the jury into believing that Peralta
admitted she was negligent. However, Peralta did not object to jury instruction 21 at trial. We will
generally consider a claimed error in a jury instruction only if the appellant raised the issue at
trial. See Trueaux v. Ernst Home Ctr., Inc., 124 Wash. 2d 334, 339, 878 P.2d 1208 (1994).Therefore,
these arguments are not well taken and we do not consider them.
12
Peralta v. State of Wash. and Wash. State Patrol, No. 92675-1
1. Two Approaches to Interpreting Ambiguous Admissions
When applying CR 36, state and federal courts 8 are split in their handling of
"ambiguous" admissions. 9 There are two main approaches. The first approach deems
all admissions as establishing all possible reasonable interpretations, unless the
admitting party successfully moves the court to withdraw or amend the admission.
See, e.g., Adventis, Inc. v. Consol. Prop. Holdings, Inc., 124 F. App'x 169, 173 (4th
Cir. 2005) ("[O]nce a matter that is properly [the] subject of an admission under
[Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 36(b) has been admitted during discovery, the district
court is not free to disregard that admission."); Commonwealth Enters. v. Liberty Mut.
Ins. Co., 1996 WL 660869, at *4 (9th Cir. Nov. 13, 1996) (unpublished) ("A matter
admitted under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 36 is conclusively established unless
withdrawn .... Evidence inconsistent with a Rule 36 admission is properly excluded."
(citations omitted)); Airco Indus. Gases, 850 F.2d at 1036 ('"A judicial admission,
deliberately drafted by counsel for the express purpose of limiting and defining the
facts in issue, is traditionally regarded as conclusive, and an admission under [Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure] 36 falls into this category."' (quoting 8 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT
& ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: CIVIL § 2264, at 742-43 (2d
ed. 1982))).
The second approach does not consider admissions to be conclusively
established when they are subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. See,
8Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 is nearly identical to our state rule, CR 36. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 36. Therefore, we find federal case law persuasive on this point.
13
Peralta v. State of Wash. and Wash. State Patrol, No. 92675-1
e.g., Driscoll v. Dennis, 513 F. App'x 702, 705 (1Oth Cir. 2013) ("But because these
requests for admissions were compound and ambiguous, we 'regard the admission
as limited in practical effect.' ... [W]e cannot conclude the district court was required
to treat the admissions as conclusively establishing Mrs. Driscoll's ownership."
(quoting Dixon v. Kirkpatrick, 553 F.3d 1294, 1303 (10th Cir. 2009})); Johnson v.
DeSoto County Bd. ofComm'rs, 204 F.3d 1335, 1339-41 (11th Cir. 2000) (concluding
that a trial court did not abuse its discretion when it limited the effect of an admission
because "at the very least, ambiguity did exist about whether the admissions were
absolute or limited"); Rolscreen Co. v. Pella Prods. of St. Louis, Inc., 64 F.3d 1202,
1210 (8th Cir. 1995) ("The conclusive effect envisioned by the rule may not be
appropriate where requests for admissions or the responses to them are subject to
more than one interpretation."). Instead, the effect of the admission is submitted for
decision by the jury.
2. The Trial Court's Approach
In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it treated Peralta's
admission as establishing all reasonable interpretations of the phrase "under the
influence." Peralta admitted without qualification that she was "under the influence of
intoxicating liquors." Peralta believed that she needed to admit influence because she
9Peralta does not concede that her admission was ambiguous. See Wash. Supreme Court oral
argument, Peralta v. State eta/., No. 93506-2 (Nov. 15, 2016), at 20 min., 18 sec. to 20 min., 25
sec., audio recording by TVW, Washington State's Public Affairs Network, http://www.tvw.org.
14
Peralta v. State of Wash. and Wash. State Patrol, No. 92675-1
had consumed alcohol. 10 Peralta's counsel argued to the trial court, "So we can't
truthfully ethically answer a question, were you under the influence, if we have any
alcohol in our system as no. We have to say yes .... " However, since Peralta wished
to admit influence only to a specific degree, CR 36 required her to qualify her
admission to reflect this idea. See CR 36(a) (stating "when good faith requires that a
party qualify his answer or deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is
requested, the party shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the
remainder" (emphasis added)). She failed to make such a qualification.
Without qualification, her admission to being under the influence was
"conclusively established" unless she moved to withdraw or amend her admission.
CR 36(b) ("Any matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the
court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission."). Peralta never
so moved. Counsel for Peralta offers no reason why, once it was clear that the trial
court intended to treat her admission as conclusively establishing the fact of
intoxication under the intoxication defense statute, she did not move to amend or
withdraw her admission. 11 Since she did not move to withdraw or amend her
10
This contention appears to be without support in our case law. See Hurd, 5 Wash. 2d at 316 ('"The
law recognizes that a person may have drunk liquor and yet not be under the infiuence of it."'
(quoting court's instruction).
11
At oral argument, Peralta's counsel stated, "That option [to withdraw or amend] wasn't given to
us." Wash. Supreme Court oral argument, supra, at 21 min., 33 sec. But the record reflects that
counsel rejected the option to amend or withdraw the admission at trial. WSP speculated that
Peralta did not wish to pay for potential costs associated with her admission under CR 37(a). See
Wash. Supreme Court oral argument, supra, at 5 min., 47 sec. to 6 min., 8 sec. Whatever the
15
Peralta v. State of Wash. and Wash. State Patrol, No. 92675-1
admission, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ruled
that Peralta's admission satisfied the standard under the intoxication defense statute.
II. Other Evidentiary Issues
While the Court of Appeals based its reversal of the trial court on the request
for admissions issue, it also held that the trial court made several erroneous rulings 12
without deciding their possible prejudicial effect. Peralta, 191 Wash. App. at 948-53.
These issues are not adequately briefed to us, nor does our order granting review
encompass whether these rulings were prejudicial. We granted review ofWSP's cross
petition. In its cross petition, WSP asked this court to reverse the Court of Appeals
because Peralta's admission satisfied the first element of RCW 5.40.060. WSP did
not petition for review of the other evidentiary issues, and neither did Peralta. Thus,
review of these other evidentiary issues is outside the scope of review. We remand
the remaining issues back to the Court of Appeals for a determination of prejudice to
Peralta. See RAP 13.7(b) ("If the Supreme Court reverses a decision of the Court of
Appeals that did not consider all of the issues raised which might support that decision,
the Supreme Court will either consider and decide those issues or remand the case
to the Court of Appeals to decide those issues.").
reason, Peralta chose not to move to amend or withdraw her admission to reflect the fact that she
did not intend to admit intoxication under the intoxication defense statute.
12 These errors included (1) excluding Sergeant Roy Rhine's and Detective David Ortner's
deposition testimonies, (2) excluding eyewitness hearsay statements, and (3) compelling Peralta
to disclose the identity of her consulting expert. Peralta, 191 Wash. App. at 951-54.
16
Peralta v. State of Wash. and Wash. State Patrol, No. 92675-1
CONCLUSION
We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Peralta's
admission satisfied the standard for intoxication under the intoxication defense statute
and accordingly reverse the Court of Appeals. The corresponding jury instruction was
not given in error. The meaning of Peralta's admission was not ambiguous in this
context. Even if we treat Peralta's admission as ambiguous, the trial court still did not
abuse its discretion. Under CR 36(a), Peralta was required to qualify her admission if
she wished to limit its legal effect. Without qualification, CR 36(b) required Peralta to
move to amend or withdraw her admission if she wanted to avoid its conclusive effect.
She never made such a motion. We remand to the Court of Appeals the remaining
evidentiary errors identified by the Court of Appeals for determination of whether the
errors prejudiced Peralta, as they are outside the scope of our review, and for further
proceedings, if any, consistent with this opinion.
17
Peralta v. State of Wash. and Wash. State Patrol, No. 92675-1
WE CONCUR.
18