Can Utah courts exclude evidence after trial when deciding post-verdict motions? Franklin v. Stevenson Explained

In Franklin v. Stevenson, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a fundamental question about the scope of trial court authority in post-trial proceedings: whether courts can exclude previously admitted evidence when deciding motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Background and Facts

Franklin sued her cousin for childhood sexual abuse based on memories she recovered during therapy with Dr. Hoover. The therapeutic techniques included relaxation methods and “communicating” with her “inner child.” Stevenson filed pretrial motions challenging the reliability of repressed memory theory and the therapeutic recovery methods. The trial court denied these motions, and a jury returned a verdict against Stevenson. However, the trial court then granted Stevenson’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict after striking Franklin’s testimony and related expert evidence from the record, concluding insufficient evidence remained to support the verdict.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented three main issues: whether trial courts can strike evidence when considering post-trial motions, whether the therapeutic techniques were equivalent to hypnosis, and whether Stevenson waived his objections by failing to object during testimony.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court adopted the rule from Townsend v. United States Rubber Co., holding that “all evidence submitted to the jury must be considered by the court in ruling on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and such a judgment cannot be entered on a diminished record after the elimination of incompetent evidence.” The court emphasized that when evidence is ruled inadmissible during post-trial motions, plaintiffs cannot remedy the situation by introducing new evidence, unlike during trial proceedings.

While the court found that the memory recovery techniques lacked sufficient scientific reliability under State v. Rimmasch and should have been excluded initially, it held that the proper remedy was not striking evidence post-trial but rather granting a new trial when properly requested.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes important procedural protections for litigants in post-trial proceedings. Trial courts must work with the evidentiary record as it existed when presented to the jury. The case also reinforces that motions in limine can serve as continuing objections, preventing waiver of evidentiary challenges. For practitioners handling cases involving novel scientific evidence, the decision underscores the importance of establishing reliability foundations under Utah Rule of Evidence 702 and the Rimmasch standard.