H. I. Holding Co. v. Dade County, 60-589
| Decision Date | 04 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 60-589,60-589 |
| Citation | 129 So.2d 693 |
| Parties | H. I. HOLDING COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. DADE COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Edward J. McBride, Coral Gables, Paul A. Louis and Bertha L. Freidus, Miami, for appellant.
Darrey A. Davis, County Atty., and Thomas C. Britton, Asst. County Atty., Miami, for appellee.
SMITH, D. R., Associate Judge.
This appeal is from a final judgment entered in an eminent domain proceeding.
As a basis for error in the lower court, the appellant, defendant below, relies primarily upon the following:
1. The sustaining of an objection by attorney for petitioner to a question by attorney for defendant directed upon crossexamination to one of the petitioner's expert witnesses, which question made inquiry regarding the amount the witness was receiving from petitioner for his services.
2. Certain statements made in argument before jury by attorney for petitioner.
3. Denial of defendant's request for an instruction by the court that the jury was not to consider as compensation any of the benefits from the proposed improvement as an offset to any of the defendant's resulting damages.
It is within the reasonable discretion of the court to determine to what length it will go in permitting cross-examination of a witness for the purpose of showing interest, bias or prejudice of the witness. Pandula v. Fonseca, 145 Fla. 395, 199 So. 358. It was admitted that the witness was employed and being paid by the petitioner. More important than the amount of pay would have been the manner or method of pay or whether or not the witness was a full time employee. No inquiry along this line was conducted by defendant. The trial judge is vested with considerable discretion in regulating and controlling the manner of examination of witnesses, and his exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed unless it has been abused or substantial harm has been done to the complaining party. 58 Am.Jur., Witnesses, Sec. 555. In this case there appears to have been no abuse of discretion by the court nor does any substantial harm appear to have resulted. As for the second basis for error, it should first be noted that no objection was made to the particular statements complained about at the time the statements were made. At the conclusion of petitioner's argument the attorney for the defendant moved for a mistrial because of the statements and then, after the court had instructed the jury, again moved for a mistrial for the same reason. Both motions were denied.
It is felt that some of counsel's statements went beyond the realm of proper argument. This alone, however, does not justify the granting of a motion for mistrial nor does it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Del Monte Banana Co. v. Chacon
...length it will go in permitting cross-examination of a witness to show his interest, bias or prejudice. Alvarez; H.I. Holding Co. v. Dade County, 129 So.2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 133 So.2d 646 (Fla.1961). In the present case, the trial court did not commit error by allowing plaint......
-
Pitts v. State
...not be considered grounds for mistrial nor reversal unless they are highly prejudicial and inflammatory. (H. I. Holding Company v. Dade County, Fla.App.3rd 1961, 129 So.2d 693) Sub judice we do not find the prosecutor's statements to have been such as to inflame the jury nor to have prejudi......
-
Dabney v. Yapa
...appellate court except upon a clear showing of an abuse of discretion and prejudice to the complaining party. H. I. Holding Company v. Dade County, Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 693; Seminole Shell Co. v. Clearwater Flying Co., Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 543. Neither of these circumstances appear in......
-
Stager v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co.
...a trial judge as to the manner of conducting his courtroom. See: Rose v. Yuille, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 318; H. I. Holding Company v. Dade County, Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 693; 32 Fla.Jur., Trial, § 16; 35 Fla.Jur., Witnesses, § 154. The limiting of a number of witnesses for a given side has lon......