From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

NAZARETH v. SAPP

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Dec 6, 1984
459 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

No. 83-1293.

November 1, 1984. Rehearing Denied December 6, 1984.

Ronald L. Harrop of Gurney Handley, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.

T.G. LaGrone, Orlando, for appellees.


Following a jury trial resulting in a defense verdict, the trial judge granted the plaintiffs' motion for new trial based upon his perception of trial misconduct by defense counsel. The trial court found:

That a new trial should be granted in this cause on the grounds (1) that the jury's verdict was influenced by matters outside the record; including the personal opinions of defense counsel; (2) the improper appeals of counsel for the Defendant to the jury's emotions and prejudices which so permeated the jury's decision by its cumulative effects to result in a miscarriage of justice; (3) that this Court erred in not sustaining the objection of Plaintiffs to the "afflication of litigiousness" argument of defense counsel, and failing to admonish the jury to disregard any such appeal; and (4) the totally unsupported assertions and closing argument by defense counsel of false issues, including specifically an assertion of collusion, subornation of perjury and extortion.

This determination is based upon the Court's personal observation of the trial and the conduct of counsel for five (5) days made in the face [of] countless admonitions and warnings to counsel to conduct the trial with propriety.

We have reviewed the record and find that it amply supports the findings of the trial judge and his order granting a new trial. It is true, as argued on appeal, that many of the prejudicial remarks made by Attorney Handley in closing argument escaped objection below. But the law of Florida is to the effect that "if the prejudicial conduct in its collective import is so extensive that its influence pervades the trial, gravely impairing a calm and dispassionate consideration of the evidence and the merits by the jury, a new trial should be awarded regardless of the want of objection." [Emphasis in original.] Tyus v. Apalachicola Northern Railroad Co., 130 So.2d 580, 587 (Fla. 1961).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.


Summaries of

NAZARETH v. SAPP

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Dec 6, 1984
459 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

NAZARETH v. SAPP

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD N. NAZARETH, M.D., APPELLANT, v. CAROLYN SAPP AND JAMES SAPP, HER…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Dec 6, 1984

Citations

459 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Citing Cases

Walt Disney World Co. v. Blalock

We agree with the Third District that appellate courts should not supinely ratify the results of such trials,…

State v. Townsend

When, however, we consider the errors in this case as a whole, we must conclude that Townsend was denied the…