CAROLYN LEAMON AND WAYNE LEAMON, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
ANABEL PUNALES AND EDUARDO PUNALES, 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.
Carolyn and Wayne Leamon appealed a final judgment in what appears to be a personal injury or tort case, challenging the trial court's limitation of voir dire examination and denial of their motion for new trial regarding a loss of consortium claim. The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court properly exercised its discretion in controlling voir dire and that insufficient evidence supported the husband's loss of consortium claim.
The trial court properly limited appellants' voir dire examination within its discretion to control repetitious and argumentative questioning. The trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial on the loss of consortium claim where there was an absence of substantial unrebutted testimony concerning the accident's impact on the couple's married life.
[1] The extent of a party's voir dire examination is within the trial court's discretion.
[2] A trial court acts properly in limiting voir dire examination that is unreasonably repetitious and argumentative.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“[I]t is the trial court's responsibility to control unreasonably repetitious and argumentative voir dire.”
Establishes the legal standard for trial court's authority over voir dire examination
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Leamons were involved in an accident. Carolyn Leamon was injured, and Wayne Leamon asserted a loss of consortium claim based on the accident's imp…
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 Voir Dire Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Carolyn and Wayne Leamon appeal a final judgment and an order denying their motion for new trial. We affirm.
First, we find the trial court acted properly in limiting appellants’ voir dire examination. “[I]t is the trial court’s responsibility to control unreasonably repetitious and argumentative voir dire.” Stano v. State, 473 So. 2d 1282, 1285 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1093, 106 S.Ct. 869, 88 L.Ed.2d 907 (1986) (citations omitted). The extent of a party’s voir dire examination is within the trial court’s discretion.1 Purdy v. Gulf Breeze Enter., Inc., 403 So. 2d 1325 (Fla.1981); Allen v. Se-Go Indus., Inc., 510 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 518 So. 2d 1273 (Fla.1987).
Second, we find that in the absence of substantial unrebutted testimony concerning the accident’s impact on the couple’s married life, the trial court did not err in denying appellants’ motion for a new trial on the husband’s loss of consortium claim. Frye v. Suttles, 568 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Smith v. Houston, 551 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), review denied, 564 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.1990); Lofley v. Insultech, Inc., 527 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
We therefore affirm the final judgment and the order denying the motion for new trial.
Affirmed.
BASKIN and GERSTEN, JJ., concur. . The partial dissent cites two criminal cases for the proposition that the time limits imposed on voir dire were too severe. A review of appellant’s proffer of proposed questions fails to demonstrate that appellant was precluded from pursuing any important theory. Although the record does not disclose the exact amount of time afforded counsel for voir dire, the trial court's repeated admonition to appellant to desist from repetition suggests that counsel improperly utilized his time.
COPE, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I respectfully dissent with regard to the voir dire issue. In my view the time limits imposed on voir dire fell short of those contemplated by Gosha v. State, 534 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), see also Pineda v. State, 571 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), and the limit was imposed without adequate warning. Plaintiff’s proffer demonstrated a bona fide need for additional time. I would grant a new trial. However, given an affirmance by the majority on that issue, I join the affirmance with respect to the loss of consortium claim.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watson v. State, 693 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ions to ask during his voir dire examination. There was no surprise and there were no unanticipated replies from the prospective jurors that would have opened an area of inquiry which would not have otherwise been anticipated. See Leamon v. Punales, 582 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing time limitations on the voir dire process. Watson’s remaining issue on appeal is affirmed without discussion. Accordingly, we aff…
-
Williams v. State, 744 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…lliams’s defensive position that eyewitness misidentifícations occur in the real world and thus to misuse the voir dire for a purpose which is properly served only by final argument. See Stano v. State, 473 So. 2d 1282 (Fla.1985); Leamon v. Punales, 582 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). While this practice is familiar, indeed common, and attempts to employ it are thoroughly understandable, it is nonetheless unacceptable. The trial judge was right to preclude its use below.4 II. Similarly, there is no basis for…
-
Delbert Ellis Aguila v. State, 709 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 689 (Fla.1982); Leamon v. Punales, 582 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Whitfield v. State, 479 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).…
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
- Stano v. State, 473 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1985)
- McKenna v. Nevada, 474 U.S. 1093 (U.S. 1986)
- John M. Purdy and his wife v. Gulf Breeze Enters., Inc., 403 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 1981)
- Gosha v. State, 534 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Pineda v. State, 571 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- McDOUGALD v. State, 568 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Smith v. Houston, 551 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Lofley v. Insultech, Inc., 527 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Allen v. Se-Go Indus., Inc., 510 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)