Hill v. Sherwood
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | HOUSTON; TORBERT |
| Citation | 488 So.2d 1357 |
| Parties | Oscar G. HILL, et al. v. Gary SHERWOOD, et al. 85-64. |
| Decision Date | 25 April 1986 |
Page 1357
v.
Gary SHERWOOD, et al.
Page 1358
William W. Smith of Hogan, Smith, Alspaugh, Samples, & Pratt, and Hubbard H. Harvey, Birmingham, for appellants.
W.W. Dinning of Lloyd, Dinning, Boggs & Dinning, Demopolis, and Olin W. Zeanah of Zeanah & Hust and G. Stephen Wiggins of Roberts, Davidson & Wiggins, Tuscaloosa, for appellees.
HOUSTON, Justice.
The plaintiffs, Oscar Hill and Irma Hill, filed this personal injury action in the Circuit Court of Marengo County against the defendants, Gary Sherwood (as a co-employee of Oscar Hill) and Robert Jones Construction Company. After a trial, the jury found for the defendants. The plaintiffs appeal from the trial judge's denial of their motion for a new trial. We affirm.
As one of the grounds for their motion, the plaintiffs stated as follows:
"That [Sherwood's defense counsel] in his closing argument to the jury stated as follows: 'That a judgment againt Gary Sherwood would hurt his career and would bankrupt him.' That said statement was highly improper in that it emphasized the lack of liability insurance on behalf of Gary Sherwood and/or wealth."
In ruling on the motion, the trial judge entered the following order:
"The Court, upon consideration of the Motion for New Trial filed by the plaintiffs, finds as follows: [The] Attorney for Gary Sherwood, during his closing argument to the jury, made a statement to the effect that a verdict against Mr. Sherwood would bankrupt him and ruin his career. There was no objection to this statement by plaintiffs' counsel and no request for instructions from the Court to the jury to disregard the remark. The closing arguments were not transcribed by the reporter; there is no record of the exact statement or the entire closing argument. The Court does recall the remark was made by [Sherwood's defense counsel] and the Court was prepared to rule on any objection made by plaintiffs' attorneys.
"The Court finds that the remark was a highly improper argument and that an objection was due to be sustained. However, the Court is of the opinion that the argument taken in the entire context of the trial and all of the closing arguments is not so highly prejudicial as to be ineradicable by curative instructions from the Court."
"It is, therefore, ORDERED by the Court that the Motion for New Trial is denied."
The law in this area is concisely stated in Alabama Power Company v. Henderson, 342 So.2d 323 (Ala.1977):
Page 1359
"Without due objection by counsel or a motion to exclude and a ruling by the trial court, improper argument of counsel is not ground for new trial nor the subject of review on appeal. An exception is where it can be shown that counsel's remarks were so grossly improper and highly prejudicial as to be beyond corrective action by the trial court. The remarks in this case do not fall within that category of statements so grossly improper or highly prejudicial as to place it within the exception to the general rule. Since there was no timely objection by counsel, there is no error for this court to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re J.F.C., No. 01-0571.
...review in these most difficult cases. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. --------------- Notes: 1. See, e.g., Hill v. Sherwood, 488 So.2d 1357, 1359 (Ala.1986) (court may consider unpreserved error in closing argument only when so grossly improper and highly prejudicial so as to be beyond......
-
Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc., No. SC92837.
...in the absence of a timely objection, although the standards for obtaining relief have varied significantly. See, e.g., Hill v. Sherwood, 488 So.2d 1357 (Ala.1986) (relief warranted only "where counsel's remarks were so grossly improper and highly prejudicial as to be beyond corrective acti......
-
Whited v. State, CR–09–0909.
...892, 895 (Ala.1995) (quoting Kane v. Edward J. Woerner & Sons, Inc., 543 So.2d 693, 694 (Ala.1989), quoting in turn Hill v. Sherwood, 488 So.2d 1357 (Ala.1986) )."Ex parte Hall, 863 So.2d 1079, 1081–82 (Ala.2003)." ‘ "In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a de......
-
Whited v. State, CR-09-0909
...895 (Ala. 1995)(quoting Kane v. Edward J.Page 13Woerner & Sons, Inc., 543 So. 2d 693, 694 (Ala. 1989), quoting in turn Hill v. Sherwood, 488 So. 2d 1357 (Ala. 1986))."Ex parte Hall, 863 So. 2d 1079, 1081-82 (Ala. 2003)."'"In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, ......