Cullison v. Medley

Indiana Court of Appeals · 1991 · Torts

Tortsnew trialnewly discovered evidencechange of judgeT.R. 60(B)newly discovered evidencematerialitycumulative evidence

Facts

After a jury awarded Cullison compensatory and punitive damages on trespass and assault claims, the Medleys sought post-trial relief with evidence that Cullison had engaged in sexual intercourse in 1990 without the erectile-assistance device he claimed to need because the Medleys had rendered him psychologically impotent. The trial court initially refused to hear that evidence on a motion to correct error because of an affidavit from Susan Goodman suggesting Ernest Medley had harassed women into giving false testimony. The Medleys later filed a Trial Rule 60(B) motion after Goodman testified that her affidavit and deposition were largely false and had been signed because Cullison threatened disclosure of a tape. At the Rule 60(B) hearing, Jana Hardesty testified that she had intercourse with Cullison several times in 1990 and Beth Slack corroborated that Hardesty had disclosed the relationship earlier.

Issue

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by vacating the judgment and ordering a new trial under Trial Rule 60(B) based on newly discovered evidence that undermined Cullison's claim of psychological impotency? Separately, did the trial court err by denying Cullison's timely motion for change of judge after granting a new trial?

Rule

A Trial Rule 60(B) movant seeking relief for newly discovered evidence must show the evidence is material and relevant, not cumulative, and likely to produce a different result. A Rule 60(B) motion is addressed to the trial court's equitable discretion, and relief may be granted where the basis on which earlier post-trial relief was denied is later shown to be flawed. When a new trial is granted, a party is entitled to one change of judge if a timely request is made under Trial Rule 76(B) and (C)(3).

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After a jury in Evansville awarded Maya Rios substantial damages for assault, much of her case rested on testimony that the incident left her unable to work around men at all, which she claimed destroyed both her livelihood and daily functioning. Two weeks after judgment, the defendant discovered a former coworker, Lena Ortiz, who credibly stated that during the same period Maya had been regularly working closely with male crews in Terre Haute and joking that her trial testimony was exaggerated; the defendant could not reasonably have located Lena before trial because she had recently moved and was not identified in discovery.

Should the trial court grant relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, a T.R. 60(B) movant relying on newly discovered evidence must show the evidence is material and relevant, not cumulative, and likely to produce a different result. Here, Lena’s testimony directly contradicts a central component of Maya’s claimed injury and damages theory, and if believed could substantially alter the verdict. The case also explains that evidence ostensibly affecting damages may justify a new trial when it undermines the truth of the plaintiff’s core claim rather than merely fine-tuning the amount.