Background
Shortly after midnight on April 24, 2016, 19-year-old Nathaniel Shane Colglazier was driving his Toyota Matrix on westbound Interstate 10 in Beaumont with his girlfriend and his 16-year-old brother, Andrew Doyle. Doyle was in the front passenger seat. Colglazier drove about 80 miles per hour, encountered slower traffic, changed lanes, and attempted to pass on the right. While trying to move back left, his car's passenger side struck the rear left corner of a tractor-trailer driven by John J. Hwang. Colglazier's blood-alcohol level was above the legal limit, and he had also used cannabis and methamphetamines that evening. He later pleaded guilty to felony driving under the influence and served a prison sentence.
Doyle's guardian ad litem brought the personal-injury action on his behalf. Hwang was the tractor-trailer driver, and Qualitas Insurance Company intervened as the insurer for Hwang's employer, American Eagle Transportation. Trial was divided into liability and damages phases. Colglazier conceded that he was negligent and that his negligence substantially contributed to Doyle's harm. The jury found Hwang was not negligent, then awarded Doyle $9,913,928.32 in past and future medical expenses and $50 million in past and future noneconomic damages. Colglazier sought a new trial only on liability, and the trial court denied that motion without explaining its reasoning.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It explained that although an order denying a new trial is not itself appealable, it may be reviewed on appeal from the underlying judgment. The court examined the entire record to determine independently whether grounds existed for a new trial while giving substantial deference to the trial court's discretion. Colglazier's appellate presentation created an immediate obstacle: the reporter's transcript omitted the closing arguments, his opening brief's argument section cited neither the clerk's nor the reporter's transcript, and he did not correct those deficiencies or augment the record after respondents identified them. The court nevertheless exercised its discretion to reach the merits as far as the incomplete record allowed rather than treating every argument as forfeited.
The court rejected the challenges to respondents' closing arguments. The record contained a slide defining "substantial," but did not establish that it was shown to the jury, what counsel said about it, or that Colglazier objected. The correct substantial-factor definition appeared in the instructions and was read again before Doyle's rebuttal. In any event, Colglazier conceded that element as to himself, and the jury found Hwang not negligent. The challenged animation was absent from the record, and the available transcript described it as an approximate visual representation of expert and eyewitness testimony. Colglazier identified neither a specific inaccuracy nor authority prohibiting such a demonstrative aid. The alleged personal attacks were likewise unsupported by a transcript; the slides contained argument but nothing so inflammatory that a timely objection and appropriate instruction could not have cured any undue prejudice.
The court also upheld the admission of accident-reconstruction expert Thomas Fugger's opinion that Hwang was in the number three lane. Colglazier, Hwang, and two other eyewitnesses had testified to that lane position, and no eyewitness testified otherwise. Fugger also relied on physical evidence, including debris locations and vehicle damage. The possibility of a different interpretation did not make his testimony speculative. The judgment was affirmed, and respondents were awarded their costs on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant challenging closing argument should preserve a complete transcript and provide accurate record citations, because snippets and descriptions in an appellate brief may not establish what the jury actually heard.
- A demonstrative animation is not automatically improper when used to illustrate expert and eyewitness testimony, particularly without a specific showing of inaccuracy or supporting contrary authority.
- Correct jury instructions and the absence of a timely objection can defeat claims that closing-argument slides caused incurable prejudice.
- An accident-reconstruction opinion grounded in consistent eyewitness testimony and physical evidence is not speculation merely because another expert might interpret the evidence differently.
- The appellate court reached the merits where possible despite serious record deficiencies and affirmed the judgment with costs to respondents.
Why It Matters
The decision demonstrates how an incomplete record can undermine several distinct new-trial theories at once. The court did not simply declare all of Colglazier's arguments forfeited; it reviewed the available materials and explained why each failed. That approach makes the opinion useful for understanding the practical relationship between preservation, record citations, demonstrative evidence, and appellate review of closing-argument misconduct.
The ruling also separates disagreement with an expert's conclusion from a legally sufficient claim of speculation. Consistent testimony from multiple witnesses and analysis of debris and vehicle damage supplied an evidentiary foundation for Fugger's opinion. Because the opinion is not certified for publication, California Rule of Court 8.1115 restricts its citation and reliance except as that rule permits.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket