Murphy v. Murphy, 92-03112
| Decision Date | 23 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-03112,92-03112 |
| Citation | 622 So.2d 99 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D1647 Thomas J. MURPHY, Sr., Appellant, v. John F. MURPHY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Dale L. Bernstein, New Port Richey, for appellant.
Donald F. Kaltenbach, P.A., and Stephen R. Williams, New Port Richey, for appellee.
Thomas J. Murphy Sr. (Thomas), the defendant below, appeals an adverse jury verdict and judgment rendered in favor of his stepfather, John F. Murphy (John). Thomas contends, and we agree, a new trial is required because of the prejudicial conduct of counsel for John. Thomas' other contentions are either without merit or moot as a result of our holding. We reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial.
This case involves a bitterly contested intra-family dispute in which John sued his step-son Thomas. John alleged that Thomas wrongfully converted various assets. All of the funds at the time of conversion were titled jointly in the names of Thomas and John.
A review of the record plainly reveals that counsel for John, although warned repeatedly, overstepped the boundaries of advocacy in expressing his personal views before the jury. It is also apparent the trial judge exerted great patience and effort in a vain attempt to control this improper conduct. The following occurred during the plaintiff's case in chief on direct examination of Thomas:
BY MR. KALTENBACH:
Q Mr. Murphy, Tom Murphy, was your dad glad to see you?
A Yes, he was.
A And I in turn was glad to see him.
Q I bet you were.
Later during the direct examination of Thomas other inappropriate comments were made:
BY MR. KALTENBACH:
Q Savings account, you take any money out of the joint savings account?
A Yes, I did.
Q How much?
A $17,500.
Q How did you come up with that figure?
A I wanted to leave him some money so he had enough money for his current needs.
Q That was gracious of you.
Again, during direct examination of Thomas the court found it necessary to admonish counsel:
BY MR. KALTENBACH:
Q Well, you saw another name on the account?
A Yes.
Q Somehow that must have concerned you in some way?
A I was there to protect my interest, because she could go down and do the same by withdrawing the funds, just like I could.
Q If she's like you, she would.
During the defendant's case in chief on cross-examination of Thomas, opposing counsel persisted in making improper remarks. Before trial, counsel for John raised a motion in limine concerning statements made by Thomas' mother, who is now deceased. The trial court granted the motion, but outlined under rule 90.602, Florida Evidence Code, testimony which would be allowed. Regardless of this ruling, counsel for John made unwarranted comments concerning permissible testimony:
BY MR. KALTENBACH:
Q It's so convenient, you're saying what your mother told you, but we can't hear her today can we?
A No. If she were alive, you wouldn't hear her either. It wouldn't be happening.
Q Absolutely, it wouldn't be happening.
Later during this cross-examination the following exchange occurred:
BY MR. KALTENBACH:
Q Mr. Tom Murphy, if these were your monies, why did you have to slide into town unannounced?
Q Mr. Murphy, if these were your monies, why did you come into town unannounced, admittedly lied to your stepfather, dad, as to why you were down here, and took out the monies without talking to him about it, and not just some of the money but all of them except for 1300 and some dollars? Why?
A To protect my interests.
Q All of that is yours, Mr. Murphy?
A I would say the bulk of it is.
Q But you took all of it.
A I'm not saying that I didn't take all of it.
Q All except $1300.
A I agree with that.
A I took $17,000 and $10,000.
Q I think you took all of it because you wanted all of it.
The following are excerpts from the closing argument presented to the jury by counsel for John. Although there was no objection, the argument was unquestionably improper and highly prejudicial. See Schubert v. Allstate Ins. Co., 603 So.2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Maercks v. Birchansky, 549 So.2d 199 (Fla.3d DCA 1989)
If all this is so right and so good, why did Tom Murphy have to slide into town unannounced, go into the apartment, park his car down the way? And he said he lied as to why he was here. If this was all so right, why lie about it? Why be a sneak about it? Why be a thief about it?
He went over to the bank, that's his business, his dirty business, he went over to the bank, got in the safety box and cleaned it out.
On May 20th, 1991, Mr. John Murphy was robbed, unfortunately, by his own son.
Now, what I would like to have us do is send a message. The message is this:
That I want John Murphy to know that justice does prevail, that he will get justice here today, after what has been done to him. Also, I want to send a message...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liggett Group, Inc. v. Engle
...mistrials or new trials based upon prejudicial conduct of counsel, there will be no elimination of such conduct." Murphy v. Murphy, 622 So.2d 99, 102(Fla. 2d DCA 1993). As this Court stated in Gomez v. State, 751 So.2d 630, 632-33 (Fla. 3d DCA There comes a point and time in the conduct of ......
-
Norman v. Gloria Farms, Inc.
...also Bellsouth; Stokes.6 While we recognize the need for zealous advocacy, we agree with the language in Murphy v. Murphy, 622 So.2d 99, 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993): "We are cognizant of the glamorization of the 'cowboy' litigator. We believe, however, that a trial by jury should not resemble a ......
-
Manhardt v. Tamton
...will not impair or thwart the orderly processes of a fair consideration and determination of the cause by the jury.'" Murphy v. Murphy, 622 So.2d 99, 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (quoting Seaboard Air Line R.R. Co. v. Strickland, 88 So.2d 519, 523 (Fla. 1956)); see also Anderson v. Watson, 559 So......
-
Muhammad v. Toys R Us, Inc.
...So.2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Bellsouth Human Resources Admin. Inc. v. Colatarci, 641 So.2d 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Murphy v. Murphy, 622 So.2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). As emphasized in Eichelkraut v. Kash N' Karry Food Stores, Inc., 644 So.2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), any unseemly conduct tha......
-
Calling the witness a liar during closing argument: the Florida Supreme Court's final approval.
...merely drawing a conclusion from the evidence."(8) The Second District Court of Appeal loosely broached this issue in Murphy v. Murphy, 622 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), when the court observed that, among other things, counsel's closing argument was unquestionably improper and highly preju......