## Facts

- A multi-vehicle accident occurred on June 30, 1993, at the intersection of U.S. Highway 50 and State Route 278 near Eureka, Nevada.
- Plaintiff Roberta Stroud’s vehicle collided with a vehicle driven by defendant James Guy Cook, followed by an alleged secondary collision involving a vehicle driven by Rosina E. Tinsley.
- Nevada Highway Patrol cited Cook for failing to use due care in operating a motor vehicle, in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484.363.
- Cook was adjudged guilty in the Eureka Justice Court and fined $35; a judgment of conviction was entered the same day.
- Stroud sued Cook for negligence and sought to introduce Cook’s misdemeanor conviction as evidence of negligence.
- In an earlier ruling in the case, the court rejected treating the conviction as conclusive proof of liability and limited its effect to prima facie evidence of the facts necessary to sustain the conviction, subject to rebuttal.

## Issues

1. Whether a Nevada misdemeanor traffic conviction may be admitted in a federal civil negligence trial when Federal Rule of Evidence 803(22) does not cover misdemeanor judgments of conviction.
2. Whether the conviction record is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8) as a public record and, in a diversity case, consistent with Nevada law assigning evidentiary significance to such convictions.

## Decision

- The court denied Cook’s motion in limine to exclude the judgment of conviction.
- The court held the misdemeanor conviction was not admissible under Rule 803(22) because that exception is limited to specified felony convictions.
- The court held the conviction record was admissible under Rule 803(8) as a public record of a public office generated in regular judicial proceedings.
- The conviction’s effect at trial was limited to prima facie, rebuttable evidence of negligence, consistent with the earlier ruling in the case.

## Legal Principles

- Federal evidentiary rules govern admissibility in federal court, including in diversity cases, but state law may determine the substantive effect given to certain proof in a state-law claim.
- A misdemeanor judgment of conviction does not qualify for admission under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(22) when it falls outside that rule’s felony-based requirements.
- A criminal judgment may be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8) if it qualifies as a public record and is not excluded by the rule’s limitations.
- When admitted, a misdemeanor traffic conviction may be used as prima facie evidence of negligence in a related civil action, while allowing the defendant to present rebuttal evidence and contest weight.

## Conclusion

The court permitted introduction of the defendant’s misdemeanor traffic conviction in a negligence trial, finding it admissible as a public record under Rule 803(8) and limiting its evidentiary force to prima facie, rebuttable proof of negligence under Nevada law as applied in the case.


Stroud v. Cook, 931 F. Supp. 733 (D. Nev. 1996)