From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Huffman v. Heagy

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 11, 1964
159 So. 2d 907 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)

Opinion

Nos. 63-107, 63-111.

January 7, 1964. Rehearing Denied February 11, 1964.

Petition for review from the Circuit Court for Dade County, George E. Holt, J.

Blackwell, Walker Gray and Paul R. Larkin, Jr., Miami, for appellant Sam Houston Huffman.

Carey, Terry, Dwyer, Austin, Cole Stephens, Miami, for appellant Morse Auto Rentals.

Alex S. Gordon, Joseph J. Gersten, Arthur Roth, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and TILLMAN PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.


Appellants, defendants in a personal injury action, seek review of an order granting a new trial which contained several grounds, one of which was: "* * * that the Plaintiffs did not receive a fair and impartial trial from a fair and impartial jury, and that the jury was swayed by outside influence beyond the control of the Court. This was recognized in the context of the adversary proceedings and the oversight in not specially charging the jury must be considered as being prejudicial error."

To wit: a newspaper found in the jury room during the trial, which contained an inflammatory headline and article which would tend to be detrimental to persons seeking recovery in personal injury actions in Dade County, Florida.

Appellate courts are much more reluctant to interfere with an order granting a new trial than an order denying a new trial. See: Cloud v. Fallis, Fla. 1959, 110 So.2d 669; Simpson v. Clay, Fla.App. 1962, 139 So.2d 494. If the order is sustainable on any ground, it should not be interfered with. See: State Plant Board v. Smith, Fla. 1959, 110 So.2d 401; Berkman v. Miami National Bank, Fla.App. 1962, 143 So.2d 535. It is apparent that the newspaper which was found in the jury room during the course of the trial in this cause could have contaminated the jury, and we will not interfere with the discretion of the trial judge in granting a new trial on this ground because of his failure to instruct in this regard. See: Ridarsick v. Amirkanian, Fla.App. 1962, 147 So.2d 580.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Huffman v. Heagy

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 11, 1964
159 So. 2d 907 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)
Case details for

Huffman v. Heagy

Case Details

Full title:SAM HOUSTON HUFFMAN AND MORSE AUTO RENTALS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Feb 11, 1964

Citations

159 So. 2d 907 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)

Citing Cases

State v. Strickland

The state appeals an order granting the defendant a new trial. Such motion is directed to the sound…

Policari v. Cerbasi

New trials have been allowed when it is suspected that a jury could have been contaminated by newspaper…