Woodham v. Roy, 84-565
| Decision Date | 05 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-565,84-565 |
| Citation | 471 So.2d 132,10 Fla. L. Weekly 1379 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1379 Marvin WOODHAM and Pauline Woodham, Appellants, v. Louise M. ROY, J & L Roy, Inc., and Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Appellees. |
Barbara J. Compiani of Edna L. Caruso, P.A. and Montgomery, Lytal, Reiter, Denney & Searcy, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellants.
Marjorie Gadarian Graham of Jones & Foster, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees.
The principal issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by unduly limiting the time for closing argument. Under the facts of this case, we conclude that twelve minutes--subdivided by counsel into eight minutes for opening and four minutes for closing--were palpably insufficient, constituting an abuse of discretion. Thus, we reverse.
This was a civil suit for negligent procurement of insurance. It arose out of a complicated fact pattern in which an insured sustained a money judgment which exceeded his insurance coverage. He then instituted the present suit against his insurance agent and the agent's carrier, contending that the agent had a duty to advise him about the availability of higher coverage. The case was tried to a jury.
At the conclusion of the first day of trial, the court informed counsel that it had to leave early the next afternoon and stated, "I assume by then you will finish the case." Then, referring to closing argument, the court stated, "I wouldn't think you would need more than 20 or 30 minutes for argument." Defendant/appellee's counsel responded, "I would say 30 minutes would be sufficient." Plaintiff/appellant's counsel stated, "It will take about a half an hour, 45 minutes." Nothing more was said on this issue.
Next morning, the defendant insurance agent testified. Her cross-examination was interrupted by several unreported side-bar conferences and, at the conclusion of cross-examination, plaintiff/appellant's counsel stated:
Your Honor, can we go on the record, please? I just want it on Plaintiff's evidence being limited on cross-examination, and I felt I was cut off and didn't get an opportunity to fully cross-examine, and also, as referred by the Court during that cross-examination, as it went on, my closing argument will be cut accordingly. Originally, we had said it would be 30 minutes and now it comes to 12 minutes. 1
At this point, defendant/appellee's counsel also objected to the twelve minute limitation on closing argument. Nonetheless, the court adhered to its position. Thereafter, the jury returned a defense verdict and this appeal ensued.
Addressing time limits placed on closing argument in a criminal case, the Florida Supreme Court stated:
[T]he limitation of the time for argument must of necessity, within reasonable bounds, rest in the discretion of the trial court. This is the general rule. The right may be waived, but, when requested, reasonable time must be allowed. The question to be determined is what is reasonable time, and this depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be prescribed. But, if it appear that the time for argument is unreasonably limited, such action will be held an abuse of discretion, requiring a reversal of the judgment for new trial.
May v. State, 89 Fla. 78, 103 So. 115, 116 (1925); see also Foster v. State, 464 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Stanley v. State, 453 So.2d 530 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
The fact that this is a civil proceeding does not mean that justice can be administered arbitrarily with a stopwatch. On the contrary, the rule of informed discretion announced in May v. State, supra, applies with equal force. See Daniel v. Rogers, 72 So.2d 391 (Fla.195...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dang v. State
...witness); Maleh v. Florida East Coast Prop., Inc., 491 So.2d 290, 292 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986) (56 seconds per witness); Woodham v. Roy, 471 So.2d 132 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1985) (4 minutes per witness); Washington, 614 So.2d at 713 (1993) (2 minutes and 9 seconds per witness); Huntly, 34 S.W. at ......
-
Rodriguez v. State, 84-994
...and ordered a new trial, because the trial judge had restricted plaintiff's closing argument to twelve minutes. Woodham v. Roy, et al., 471 So.2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).2 In Foster v. State, 464 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), on motion for clarification, the Third District Court of Appeal ......
-
Hickey v. State
...DCA 1985) (15 minutes on a charge of armed robbery). The same rationale has recently been applied in a civil case. Woodham v. Roy, et al., 471 So.2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). ...
-
Simmons v. State, No. 5D99-908
...distinguish one trial from another." Strong v. Mt. Dora Growers Coop., 495 So.2d 1238, 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)(citing Woodham v. Roy, 471 So.2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)). In order for a time limit to be considered reasonable, the time limit must be sufficient to enable counsel to relate the......