less..
In this case, Sigo brought an action against Prudential to recover for the fire loss of his home. Concurrent with that civil litigation, he was charged and tried for arson for the same fire that was the cause of his claim. A jury acquitted him of those charges. Prudential filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude any evidence of Sigo's acquittal and the trial court granted that motion. The trial court then certified the issue for an interlocutory appeal.

On appeal, the Court noted that no Indiana reported case had addressed the extent to which evidence of acquittal was admissible in a civil case. However, it noted that cases from other jurisdictions supported the trial court's decision. Sigo argued that evidence of his criminal trial would show bias, prejudice, or adverse interest of Prudential's witnesses. However, he failed to explain how those witnesses' prior testimony creates a substantial bias or adverse interest.


The Court's decision is not surprising. As Prudential argued, an acquittal is not a positive finding of innocence; it is a negative judgment that the State's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt was not met. Because the standard of proof in a civil case is much lower, a powerful case can be made that evidence of an acquittal is simply not relevant to the question of civil liability. What is interesting about this case, however, is that the Court did not base its judgment on this rationale, leaving room for litigants to make the fact of acquittal admissible upon a showing that the evidence is sufficiently probative.

Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
Download a copy of this article here