Julie Runkle v. Louisiana Urology, Llc, Et Al.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
June 01, 2022
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
JULIE RUNKLE
VS.
LOUISIANA UROLOGY, LLC, ET AL.
No. 2022-CC-00514
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Julie Runkle - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish of
East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Number(s) 638586, Court of Appeal,
First Circuit, Number(s) 2022 CW 0045;
_ _ _ _ _ _
June 01, 2022
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., dissents and would deny the writ.
Hughes, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Griffin, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
JDH
JBM
SJC
JTG
PDG
06/01/2022 "See News Release 025 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

1
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2022-CC-00514
J
ULIE RUNKLE
VS.
LOUISIANA UROLOGY, LLC, ET AL.
O
n Supervisory Writ to the 19th Judicial District Court,
Parish of East Baton Rouge
PE
R CURIAM
W
rit granted. P laintiff called Dr. Henry Hollier in her case -in-chief as a
witness identified with an adverse party pursuant to Code of Evidence article 611(C)
due to his role as the surgeon who performed the plaintiff’s operation. Defendant
Louisiana Urology declined to cross -examine Dr. Hollier at that time. Dr. Hollier
was later called as a witness in defendant’s case-in-chief. Over plaintiff’s objection,
the trial court refused to allow plaintiff to cross-examine Dr. Hollier on the basis that
plaintiff had previously examined him in her case-in-chief. At the conclusion of trial,
the jury found Louisiana Urology was not at fault. The trial court denied the
plaintiff’s motion for new trial.
Code of Evidence article 611(C) provides in part:
Generally, leading questions should not be used on the direct
examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop his
testimony and in examining an expert witness on his opinions and
inferences. However, when a party calls a hostile witness, a witness
who is unable or unwilling to respond to proper questioning, an adverse
party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may
be by leading questions.
Co
mment (c) of Article 611 provides in part:
T
he terms “direct examination” and “cross-examination” are not
defined in this Paragraph or elsewhere in this Code. “Direct
examination” as used in this Code simply means the questioning of a
witness by the party who called him, and, particularly as used in
Paragraphs B and C of this Article, “cross-examination” refers merely
06/01/2022

2

to the questioning of a witness after the witness has been called and
questioned by another party. In common legal parlance the term “cross-
examination” often carries with it an additional connotation that relates
to the form and content of the questioning; that is, to the use of leading
questions and to the use of questions that attack the credibility of a
witness. This Code, however, separates from the meaning of “direct”
and “cross-examination” those issues which relate to scope and form of
examination and attacks on credibility. Thus, Paragraph B of this
Article controls the scope of cross-examination. Paragraph C controls
the use of leading questions.

A trial court has the right to control the nature, extent and character of cross-
examination; however, a trial court cannot deprive a party of the procedural right of
cross-examination. Labadot v. Labadot, 328 So.2d 747, 749 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1976).
The plaintiff in this case did not have the opportunity to cross- examine Dr.
Hollier. The plaintiff was able to conduct a direct examination of Dr. Hollier in her
case-in-chief. Because Dr. Hollier met the definition of a witness identified with an
adverse party, the plaintiff was able to ask leading questions. Under the terms of
Article 611 the plaintiff did not cross-examine Dr. Hollier because the plaintiff was
not allowed to question him following his direct examination during the defense’s
case-in-chief. Dr. Hollier was the plaintiff’s first witness at trial. During Dr. Hollier’s
direct examination by the defendant, Dr. Hollier addressed the testimony of plaintiff
and her expert, Dr. Richard Link, who testified after Dr. Hollier in the plaintiff’s
case-in-chief.
Without cross-examination of Dr. Hollier by the plaintiff, the jury could not
properly weigh the evidence and determine its value. This error defeated plaintiff’s
right to a fair trial. See Harry Bourg Corp. v. Punch, 625 So.2d 735, 737 (La. App.
1 Cir. 1993). Because of this error, we grant the plaintiff’s motion for new trial.