NORMA BARO, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHEAST FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI SPRINGS AND SOUTHEAST BANKING CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Norma Baro appealed a jury verdict in favor of her former employer after being discharged, raising four issues including exclusion of criminal acquittal evidence, denial of a slander claim amendment, refusal to submit punitive damages, and jury instructions on malice. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment.
The trial court did not err on any of the four points. Evidence of criminal acquittal is generally inadmissible in civil proceedings and was properly excluded, especially since the defendants did not introduce it. The slander issue was never formally pleaded and amendment was properly refused. Punitive damages were not warranted by the record. Standard jury instructions on malice in a libel action were appropriate where the plaintiff tendered no written instructions.
[1] Evidence of acquittal in a criminal proceeding is generally inadmissible in a civil proceeding.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit a plaintiff to amend a complaint to add a claim of slander when the issue was never formally pled.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Evidence of acquittal of a criminal conviction is not appropriate in a civil proceeding, generally.”
Establishes the foundational rule that criminal acquittals are inadmissible in civil cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBaro was discharged from employment allegedly based on a criminal charge. She brought a civil action against Southeast First National Bank. At trial, …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Amendment To Conform To Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Following our opinion in Baro v. Southeast First National Bank of Miami Springs, 363 So. 2d 397 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), the matter recurred in the trial court, resulting in a jury verdict1 for the defendants and a final judgment was rendered thereon. This appeal ensued.
The points for reversal are: (1) That the trial court erred in refusing to permit the plaintiff to testify that she was found not guilty in a Federal court proceedings on the alleged crime which formed the basis for her discharge from employment. (2) That the trial court erred in refusing to permit the plaintiff to amend and submit to the jury a claim of slander. (3) That the trial court erred in refusing to submit the question of punitive damages to the jury. (4) That the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury as to malice. We affirm.
Evidence of acquittal of a criminal conviction is not appropriate in a civil proceeding, generally. Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Co., 88 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1956); Wirt v. Fraser, 158 Fla. 777, 30 So. 2d 174 (1947); State v. Dubose, 152 Fla. 304, 11 So. 2d 477 (1943); 23 Fla.Jur.2d, Evidence and Witnesses, § 321. This is particularly true in the instant case, wherein the defendants did everything in their power to keep this evidence of criminal prosecution from the jury. The matter was brought to the attention of the jury by counsel for the plaintiff, and we find no error in the trial court’s refusing to permit additional evidence in this regard because the plaintiff never should have brought it to the civil trial in the first instance. A different result might have obtained if the defendants had initially brought the matter to the attention of the jury. See and compare: Shoup v. Mannino, 188 Pa.Super. 457, 149 A. 2d 678 (1959).
The issue of slander was never pled formally and we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court refusing to permit an amendment to conform to the evidence. Martinez v. Clark Equipment Company, 382 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Ruden v. Medalie, 294 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Dunn v. Campbell, 166 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964).
We find no error in refusing to submit the question of punitive damages to the jury, as there was no sufficient basis in the record to warrant it. Tuel v. The Hertz Corporation, 296 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); St. Peterburg Sheraton Corporation v. Stuart, 242 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); Winn & Lovett Grocery Company v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214 (1936). Further, the effect of the jury verdict on liability rendered this point moot. Tennant v. Vazquez, 389 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); LeJuene Road Hospital, Incorporated v. Watson, 171 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); McLain v. Pensacola Coach Corporation, 152 Fla. 876, 13 So. 2d 221 (1943); 17 Fla.Jur.2d, Damages, § 114.
Finally, the plaintiff tendered no written instructions in accordance with Rule 1.470(b), Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial judge gave the standard jury instruction as to what constitutes “malice” in a libel action. Therefore, we find no error in tliis regard. Jackson v. Harsco Corporation, 364 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Ellis v. Golconda Corporation, 352 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgment on the jury verdict be and the same is hereby affirmed.2
Affirmed.
. The defendants proposed a verdict form which would have contained aspecial interrogatories. Plaintiffs counsel objected and requested the general verdict form, which was used.
. See and compare: Judge Hubbart’s concurring opinion in Owner’s Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Ott, 402 So. 2d 466, at 470, (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kelley v. Mutnich, 481 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…had already inserted this subject into the proceedings by testifying that he had been found not guilty of the criminal trespassing charges against him and that the case had been dismissed. In Baro v. Southeast First National Bank of Miami Springs, 406 So. 2d 532, 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), the court held that evidence of acquittal of defendants in a criminal prosecution was inadmissible, but pointed out that “[a] different result might have obtained if the defendants had initially brought the matter to the att…
Authorities Cited (18 total)
- Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308 (Fla. 1936)
- Gertrude McLAIN v. Pensacola Coach Corp., 152 Fla. 876 (Fla. 1943)
- State v. Dubose, 152 Fla. 304 (Fla. 1943)
- Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Co., 88 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1956)
- Ellis v. Golconda Corp., 352 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Erle L. Wirt v. Fraser, 158 Fla. 777 (Fla. 1947)
- Ruden v. Medalie, 294 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Owner's Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. OTT, 402 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- ST. Petersburg Sheraton Corp. v. Stuart, 242 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- LE Juene Rd. Hosp. v. Watson, 171 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)