ANN MARIE PUZA, APPELLANT,
v.
WINN-DIXIE SUPERMARKETS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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 Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's grant of mistrial and reinstatement of a jury verdict in a negligence case against Winn-Dixie Supermarkets. The trial court had granted mistrial based on plaintiff's counsel's use of leading questions, but the appellate court found this abuse of discretion where the questioned conduct was not so prejudicial as to deny a fair trial after a four-day jury trial.
The trial court abused its discretion in granting mistrial. Although plaintiff's counsel asked fifteen objected-to leading questions, the conduct was not sufficiently prejudicial to deny Winn-Dixie a fair trial, particularly where only two further incidents of objected-to leading questions occurred after the first mistrial motion and none after the second motion.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by granting a mistrial after a lengthy jury trial based on a pattern of leading questions that were not so prejudicial as to deny a pa…
[2] A party seeking to preserve an objection to improper comments or questions at trial for the purpose of supporting a mistrial must make a spontaneous objection and motion…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“In our view, the trial court abused its discretion in granting Winn-Dixie's motion for mistrial after a four-day jury trial. Although plaintiff's attorney did ask fifteen leading questions that were objected to, the questions and conduct were not so prejudicial as to improperly influence the jury to the extent of denying Winn-Dixie a fair trial.”
Establishes the central holding that the trial court abused its discretion by granting mistrial despite fifteen leading questions being only marginally prejudicial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a four-day jury trial, plaintiff's counsel asked approximately fifteen leading questions that were objected to by Winn-Dixie. The trial court r…
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 Prejudicial Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Judge.
We grant appellee’s motion for rehearing. The opinion of January 20, 1988 is withdrawn. We substitute the following opinion:
We reverse the trial court’s order granting a mistrial to Winn-Dixie Supermarkets, Inc., a Florida corporation (Winn-Dixie), and resetting the case for a new trial.
During the course of the trial, Winn-Dix-ie twice moved for a mistrial but the trial court reserved ruling. After the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the trial court granted Winn-Dixie’s motion for mistrial on the grounds that the plaintiff’s counsel had asked an excessive number of leading questions.
In our view, the trial court abused its discretion in granting Winn-Dixie’s motion for mistrial after a four-day jury trial. Although plaintiff’s attorney did ask fifteen leading questions that were objected to, the questipns and conduct were not so prejudicial as to improperly influence the jury to the extent of denying Winn-Dixie a fair trial. It is also significant that after Winn-Dixie’s first motion for mistrial and the trial court’s admonition that it would reserve ruling on the motion, there were only two further incidents where Winn-Dixie objected to a question as leading and had the objection sustained. After the second motion for mistrial, there were no further incidents.
Winn-Dixie maintains that the record is replete with unobjected to leading questions and that they should have objected more often for the record, but did not for fear of antagonizing the jury. However, it is well settled that allegedly improper comments or questions at trial to support a mistrial must be accompanied by a spontaneous objection and motion for mistrial. Saunders v. Smith, 382 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA), appeal dismissed, 389 So. 2d 1114 (Fla.1980). Therefore, Winn-Dixie cannot rely on unobjected to leading questions as additional support for the trial judge’s granting of a mistrial.
In the instant case, the plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct was simply not so egregious as to warrant a mistrial after a four-day jury trial. We reverse and remand to the trial court to reinstate the jury verdict and enter judgment accordingly.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
STONE, J., concurs.
ANSTEAD, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. Deanne Schapell Gillett and John Gillett, 96 So. 3d 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…56 (Fla.2010); Millar Elevator Serv. Co. v. McGowan, 819 So. 2d 145, 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Bew v. Williams, 373 So. 2d 446, 448-49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Dorsey v. Reddy, 931 So. 2d 259, 265 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Puza v. Winn-Dixie Supermarkets, Inc., 526 So. 2d 696, 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Second, although the trial court sustained objections to many of defense counsel’s questions to Dr. Linde on the basis that they were “leading” or involved counsel’s “testifying,” the questions posed were generally not lea…
Authorities Cited
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Kiibler, 382 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Morera v. City OF Miami, 382 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)