NH Supreme Court Update: Will Rivas Decision Affect Your Motor Vehicle Case?~4 min read

The New Hampshire Supreme Court recently issued an order regarding the impact of a trial judge’s ruling on evidentiary issues and the impression they leave on a jury in a case called Rivas v. Ciecko, 2026 NH 2.

Plaintiff sued Defendant for damages stemming from a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff claimed that, as a result of the accident, she began to have fainting spells. Over a year after the accident, Plaintiff fell down a set of stairs while intoxicated at a birthday party and fractured her leg. She claimed that the syncope she alleges she developed as a result of the prior motor vehicle accident was to blame for her fall. Therefore, she claims that her fractured leg stems from damages she sustained in the motor vehicle accident the year prior.

The judge made several key evidentiary decisions at trial that had a significant impact on the jury’s impression of the case. Both parties offered their own neurologist as an expert to discuss whether the accident had exacerbated the Plaintiff’s pre-existing migraines. The court limited the scope of cross examination of the experts to matters each expert testified to on direct examination. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that this was improper because there were certain things that the defense expert had testified to during their deposition that the Plaintiff’s counsel was not able to elicit at trial because they were not addressed during direct examination.

During closing arguments, defense counsel made reference to the fact that the plaintiff had not called various witnesses such as her treating doctors, mental health providers, or family and friends who were at the party where the fall down the stairs occurred. Defense counsel told the jury that if those witnesses were going to be helpful to the Plaintiff’s case, they would have been called. Defense counsel had not previously informed the court of their intention to comment on the absence of certain witnesses during closing arguments. The Plaintiff had no opportunity to respond to this allegation or to explain why these witnesses were not called other than to leave the jury with the impression that their testimony would have been unfavorable to her case.

On appeal, the Supreme Court stated that, while the trial court has broad discretion to limit the scope of cross examination regarding matters not testified to on direct examination, it did not exercise that discretion appropriately in this case. The trial court had expressed concern that testimony regarding the cost of treatment would confuse the jury because the defense expert’s report had not been admitted into evidence and the issue of future medical treatment costs was not being decided. The Supreme Court determined that the trial court’s specific ruling limiting the scope of cross examination was an unsustainable use of discretion in this case because it allowed the Defendant to argue that the jury could not find that the Plaintiff’s migraines were exacerbated by the accident without finding that the Plaintiff had a traumatic brain injury. This was directly contradictory to the Defense’s own expert, which said that the Plaintiff’s whiplash injury had exacerbated her migraines. The Supreme Court determined that leaving the jury with this impression was prejudicial to the Plaintiff and was an unsustainable use of discretion by the trial court.

The Supreme Court also held that when a party intends to make reference to a failure to call a particular witness during a closing argument, they must first make the trial court and the other party aware of this intent with enough time to allow the opposing party challenge the missing witness argument based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. The judge in this case opted not to instruct the jury to disregard any portion of the argument following the closing arguments, so instead the jury was left with the impression that the witnesses that the Plaintiff did not call would have testified in a manner that was unfavorable to her. Further, the Plaintiff had no opportunity to counter this argument.

Contact Us Today!

The Takeaway: Evidentiary decisions made by the trial court are hugely impactful, especially when there is a jury involved. It is very important to have adequate legal representation to protect your interests. If you are looking to meet with an attorney to discuss a personal injury matter, please contact our office to set up a consultation.