GAIL HILLSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT DEESON AND RICHARD DEESON AND ALEC KRYSTEL, D/B/A DIXIE GLASS, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a final judgment in a civil case, holding that the trial court properly denied a motion for new trial based on allegedly newly discovered evidence and that the trial court properly overruled an objection to a defendant's closing argument. The court took the opportunity to criticize improper closing arguments by both counsel, though neither party objected to most of them.
The motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence was properly denied because the new evidence probably would not have changed the trial outcome and did not establish that Robert Deeson knowingly gave false testimony. The trial court's oral ruling overruling the objection to the defendant's final argument was proper and presents no reversible error.
[1] A motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is properly denied when the new evidence would not have changed the outcome of the trial or established that a…
[2] A trial court's oral statement overruling an objection to a party's final argument does not present reversible error when the argument itself was proper.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence [raised by the affidavit in support thereof which was treated below as part of the motion for new trial] was properly denied by the trial court because the new evidence probably would not, in our view, have changed the outcome of this trial”
Establishes the court's holding that newly discovered evidence must likely have changed the trial outcome to warrant a new trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a dispute between Gail Hillson (plaintiff-appellant) and Robert Deeson, Richard Deeson, and Alec Krystel doing business as Dixie Gla…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Newly Discovered Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
The final judgment under review is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence [raised by the affidavit in support thereof which was treated below as part of the motion for new trial] was properly denied by the trial court because the new evidence probably would not, in our view, have changed the outcome of this trial, and, in any event, did not establish that the defendant Robert Deeson knowingly gave false testimony at trial. Dade National Bank of Miami v. Kay, 131 So. 2d 24 (Fla.3d DCA 1961); compare Alston v. Shiver, 105 So. 2d 785 (Fla.1958); and (b) the defendant’s final argument which was objected to, and the trial court’s oral statement overruling said objection was proper, and, in any event, presents no reversible error. Blackburn v. Dorta, 348 So. 2d 287, 291, 293 (Fla.1977); Taylor v. State, 330 So. 2d 91, 93 (Fla.1st DCA 1976); § 59.041, Fla.Stat. (1979).
This affirmance, however, should not be interpreted as an approval of other comments made by plaintiff’s counsel (TR 186, 192-93) and defendant’s counsel (TR 198-99, 200-202, 206-207, 208, 210) in final argument to which no objection was made. In our view, these comments violate the spirit, if not the letter of Fla.Bar Code Prof.Resp. EC7-24, DR7-106(C)(3), (4), insofar as they assert counsel’s personal belief in the justness of the cause and the credibility of the parties as witnesses at trial as well as counsel’s personal knowledge of the facts in issue. Miami Coin-O-Wash, Inc. v. McGough, 195 So. 2d 227 (Fla.3d DCA 1967). We deplore such comments and admonish counsel not to engage in such conduct in the future; indeed, the trial court, in our view, should restrain these comments even absent an objection. We affirm, not because we condone such conduct; but because both parties engaged in it and neither interposed any objection thereto, Nelson v. Reliance Insurance Co., 368 So. 2d 361 (Fla.4th DCA 1978).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Blackburn v. Dorta, 348 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1977)
- Maynard Nelson and Myrtle Nelson v. Reliance Ins. Co., 368 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Dade Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. KAY, 131 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Alston v. Trillie Shiver, 105 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 1958)
- Miami Coin-O-Wash, Inc. v. McGOUGH, 195 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Taylor v. State, 330 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)