SHAFTER G. WYATT, III, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JANET L. WYATT, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
MARILYN L. MARCUS, D.O.; MARILYN L. MARCUS, D.O., P.A., 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 appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial based on improper comments made by plaintiff's counsel during closing argument.
Plaintiff's counsel made numerous improper comments during closing argument, leading to defense counsel's motions for mistrial. The trial court grante…
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 Motion For Mistrial cases and more on FLexlaw
CORTIÑAS, Judge.
We review the trial court’s order granting a new trial based on numerous improper comments made by plaintiffs counsel during closing argument and the cumulative effect of those comments. A trial court’s decision to grant a new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246, 1263 (Fla.2006); Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Sys. Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla.2000). In Murphy, the Florida Supreme Court addressed the factors which a trial court must consider when dealing with unobject-ed-to comments in closing argument. Murphy, 766 So. 2d at 1028-31. Such factors are only to be considered when there is a failure to object during closing argument or a failure to request a mistrial based on such statements during or at the close of such argument. See id. at 1031; Garbutt v. LaFarnara, 807 So. 2d 83, 83 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
In this case, all of the improper comments cited by the trial court in its order granting a new trial were addressed through the trial court’s consideration of defense counsel’s motions for mistrials both during and at the end of plaintiffs closing argument.1 Thus, the trial court was correct that the Murphy standard for unobjected-to comments did not apply. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial.
Affirmed.
. We note that many of the improper comments made by plaintiff’s counsel were also objected to by defense counsel during closing argument.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Howard A. Engle, M.D. v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006)
- Murphy v. Int'l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000)
- Garbutt v. LaFARNARA, 807 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)