Lovell v. Henry, 67--948
| Decision Date | 11 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 67--948,67--948 |
| Citation | 212 So.2d 67 |
| Parties | Olive Rose LOVELL, Appellant, v. Mary Baker HENRY and Carl D. Baker, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kelner & Lewis, Miami, for appellant.
Hawkesworth & Kay, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ., and SPECTOR, SAM, Associate Judge.
Plaintiff in a personal injuries action arising from an automobile accident appeals from a final judgment of $3,000 entered pursuant to a jury verdict. The point urged by appellant for reversal is the trial court's refusal to grant plaintiff's motion for mistrial which motion was made during the course of defense counsel's summation before the jury.
The particular conduct of defense counsel on which appellant grounded her motion for mistrial was the use by said defense counsel of a doctor's report to refresh his memory during the course of his summation of the case before the jury. Appellant contends that the doctor's report, which had not been admitted into evidence, was alluded to by defense counsel as if it were actually in evidence; and, further, that the said report contained notes written in large, red letters calculated to influence the jury when observed by its members. In refusing to grant plaintiff's motion for mistrial, the trial judge manifested his belief that the doctor's report was not alluded to in the fashion complained of and, further, that the notes written on the report were not such, nor were they used in a manner so as to have the effect on the jury about which plaintiff complained. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the trial judge was correct in this regard.
It is well settled that counsel is accorded a wide latitude in making his argument to a jury. Whether the bounds of propriety in such regard have been exceeded, however, must be measured against the prejudicial effect, if any, that is likely to be had upon the jury. Schnedl v. Rich, 137 So.2d 1 (Fla.App.2d 1962). Jury arguments will not be considered grounds for mistrial unless they are highly prejudicial and inflammatory. H. I. Holding Company v. Dade County, 129 So.2d 693 (Fla.App.3d 1961).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pitts v. State
...1974, 294 So.2d 691) It is well settled that counsel is accorded a wide latitude in making argument to the jury. (Lovell v. Henry, Fla.App.3rd 1968, 212 So.2d 67; Frazier v. State, supra) jury arguments will not be considered grounds for mistrial nor reversal unless they are highly prejudic......
-
Metropolitan Dade County v. Dillon
...will not serve as a basis for reversing a judgment. Wise v. Jacksonville Gas Corporation, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 704; Lovell v. Henry, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 67; Broge v. State, Fla.App.1974, 288 So.2d 280. In the instant case, the remarks complained of were not of such an inflammatory cha......
-
Flicker v. State, R--114
...it.' We recognize that it is well settled that counsel is accorded a wide latitude in making his argument to a jury. (Lovell v. Henry, Fla.App. (3d) 1968, 212 So.2d 67; Frazier v. State. Fla.App.(1st) 1974, 294 So.2d 691, opinion filed May 7, 1974) Whether the bounds of propriety in such re......
-
Lan-Chile Airlines, Inc. v. Rodriguez, LAN-CHILE
...require the trial judge to grant a new trial. See Americana of Bal Harbour, Inc. v. Kiester, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 121; Lovell v. Henry, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 67; Bieley v. Jennings Construction Corporation, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 809, Lastly, the appellant has raised a new point in th......