Popham v. Popham

Supreme Court of Georgia · 2005 · Family Law

Family LawDivorceEvidencedivorcecruel treatmentirretrievably broken marriagemarital infidelitycircumstantial evidence

Facts

The wife filed for divorce alleging cruel treatment and that the marriage was irretrievably broken. At trial, the court admitted evidence concerning the husband's use of Viagra, which the wife claimed related to several extramarital sexual relationships before and after separation, and also admitted evidence of an extramarital affair the husband had participated in 14 years before the divorce was granted. The court also allowed the wife's financial expert, in valuing the husband's business under the capitalization method, to refer to rates associated with Certificates of Deposit and Treasury Bills. The jury divided property and awarded the wife alimony, and the husband challenged these evidentiary rulings in a motion for new trial.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence about the husband's use of Viagra, admitting evidence of a 14-year-old extramarital affair, and allowing the wife's valuation expert to refer to certain securities when explaining his business-valuation methodology. More broadly, the question was whether these evidentiary rulings warranted a new trial in the divorce case.

Rule

In domestic relations cases, a party may prove sexual misconduct through circumstantial evidence. Evidence is relevant if it logically tends to prove or disprove a material fact at issue, and every act that tends to throw light upon a material fact or issue is relevant. Evidence of a prior affair may be admissible to support a cruel-treatment claim and to impeach contrary testimony. The facts on which an expert bases an opinion are admissible on direct or cross-examination, and those bases go to the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility.

🔒

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.

In a divorce trial in Savannah, Lena Morris alleges cruel treatment and marital infidelity by her husband, Caleb Morris. She offers pharmacy records showing Caleb repeatedly filled prescriptions for a drug commonly used to facilitate sexual activity during periods when he was frequently staying overnight with a coworker in Augusta.

Caleb objects that the prescription records do not directly prove adultery and are therefore irrelevant. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The evidence should be admitted. The governing rule is that relevant evidence is admissible if it logically tends to prove or disprove a material fact, and in domestic relations cases sexual misconduct may be shown through circumstantial evidence. Prescription records for a drug associated with sexual activity can throw light on alleged marital infidelity, so the objection fails. (Derived from Popham v. Popham (n.d.).)