CITY OF MIAMI BEACH AND FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
LEE KLEIN AND MERCEDES A. CRUZ, 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.
The court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to grant a motion for a new trial.
A jury awarded plaintiff damages, but defendant claimed prejudice from evidence originating from a police internal affairs file not formally introduce…
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 Opening The Door (Evidentiary Rule) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The single issue on this appeal is whether the trial judge erred in refusing to grant a motion for new trial following a jury verdict for the plaintiff. During the trial, the jury received certain evidence which originated from a Miami Beach Police Department Internal Affairs file which was never introduced in evidence. The City of Miami Beach, defendant below, appellant here, claims that irreparable prejudice resulted from the disclosures. We conclude that no reversible error is demonstrated on this record and, accordingly, affirm.
The existence of the file and reference to its contents were first brought out by the defendant during plaintiff’s case in chief. Subsequent reference to the file in question was made by both sides and, in fact, portions of its contents were received in evidence.1 Since the use of testimony was originally initiated by the defense and the fact that the officers were subsequently exonerated by the City of Miami Beach’s personnel board was brought out by the defense, the plaintiff’s revelation that the officers were charged in a disciplinary proceeding and the basis for those charges can hardly be characterized as prejudicial. The trial court’s determination that the defense had “opened the door” was proper. Oliver v. Haspil, 152 So. 2d 758, 760 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). See also McKinney Supply Company v. Orovitz, 96 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1957); Behar v. Southeast Banks Trust Company, N.A., 374 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Clay v. Thomas, 363 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
Affirmed.
. No motion in limine regarding the internal review file or reference to testimony which occurred at the personnel board hearing was made by either party.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Augustin Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 454 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…tances” away from business premises inadmissible); moreover, the defendants, not the plaintiff, adduced the major portion of this evidence, in any event, and should not, therefore, be heard to complain of its admission. City of Miami Beach v. Klein, 414 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Carvajal v. Adams, 405 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), pet. for review denied, 412 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1982); Behar v. Southeast Banks Trust Co., N.A., 374 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 379 So. 2d 202 (Fla.1980). The tr…
-
Phillip Morris, Inc. v. Suzette Ahrendt Janoff, 901 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…proper. See Allah v. State, 471 So. 2d 121, 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (party that elicits testimony on cross-examination cannot complain when adverse party elicits same testimony or explores. the subject of the testimony); City of Miami Beach v. Klein, 414 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); La Rocca v. State, 401 So. 2d 866, 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Finally, Dr. Anderson’s testimony was not the only evidence about the absence of medical literature finding a causal connection between ETS and chronic sinusitis. Such e…
-
Kelley v. Mutnich, 481 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…ifferent result might have obtained if the defendants had initially brought the matter to the attention of the jury.” Semble: Carvajal v. Adams, 405 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1982); City of Miami Beach v. Klein, 414 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). And see, to the effect that this result is based upon the invited error rule, Stanley v. State, 357 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 891 (Fla.1978). See also, to the same effect, Behar v. Southeast Banks Trust…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Behar v. Se. Banks Tr. Co., 374 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- McKINNEY Supply Co. v. Orovitz, 96 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1957)
- Clay v. Thomas, 363 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Oliver v. Haspil, 152 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)