JAMES E. SIMMONS, SR., AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ELLA G. SIMMONS, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI, INC., ET AL., 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.
In this medical malpractice appeal, the court reversed a jury verdict for defendants and ordered a new trial after the trial court improperly allowed cross-examination of the plaintiff's medical witnesses to elicit highly prejudicial character evidence unrelated to the merits, including insinuations of arson and racist statements, which denied the plaintiff a fair trial.
The court held that the trial court erred in admitting the prejudicial evidence and that such error was not cured by a belated curative instruction, requiring reversal and a new trial because the unfair character attacks on essential witnesses inflamed the jury and denied the plaintiff the substance of a fair trial.
[1] Errors are properly preserved for appellate review when objections are made on specific grounds and grounds apparent from the context, and a motion for mistrial is unnece…
[2] The probative value of evidence is outweighed by its unfairly prejudicial character when it does not constitute proper impeachment and should not have been admitted.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“We think these unfair character assassinations could have done nothing but inflame the jury against these witnesses, who were so essential to the plaintiff's case, and in so doing, denied the plaintiff the substance of a fair trial below.”
Establishes the court's core reasoning that the prejudicial evidence constituted improper character attacks that denied a fair trial regardless of marginal relevance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against Baptist Hospital of Miami and other defendants. During trial, defense counsel cross-examine…
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 Waiver Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict for the defendants in a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff contends on appeal that he was denied the substance of a fair trial when the trial court permitted defense counsel, over proper objection, to cross examine two of his essential medical witnesses so as to elicit (1) that one such witness’ medical offices had suffered a fire, that the witness had filed suit against his insurance company to collect on his fire loss, and that the insurer was defending the case on the basis that an arson had been perpetrated; and (2) that the other witness, in a deposition taken in an unrelated case which was not contradictory to any of his trial testimony, had attempted to justify his failure to pass the Florida medical examination by stating that eighty percent of those who took the medical exam when he did were foreign-born, “brown skinned people,” who had crammed six months for the exam, when he had no such time to devote to such study. We entirely agree and reverse for a new trial.
First, the claimed errors were properly preserved for appellate review. The plaintiff strenuously objected to the offending questions both on specific grounds and on grounds which were apparent from the context in which they were made. See § 90.104(l)(a),'Fla.Stat. (1983); moreover, after the trial court ovérruled plaintiff’s objections thereto, it was unnecessary to move for a mistrial. See Simpson v. State, 418 So. 2d 984, 986 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1156, 103 S.Ct. 801, 74 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1983); Bullard v. State, 436 So. 2d 962, 963 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 446 So. 2d 100 (Fla.1984).
Second, the probative value of the evidence, even if marginally relevant, was entirely outweighed by its unfairly prejudicial character; moreover the evidence did not constitute proper impeachment and should not have been admitted below. See Hitchcock v. State, 413 So. 2d 741, 744 (Fla.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 960, 103 S.Ct. 274, 74 L.Ed.2d 213 (1982); Gelabert v. State, 407 So. 2d 1007, 1010-11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Schwab v. Tolley, 345 So. 2d 747, 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); §§ 90.403, 90.609, 90.610, 90.614, Fla.Stat. (1983).
Third, the admission of this evidence greatly prejudiced the plaintiff as it inferred that one of its crucial medical witnesses was a possible arsonist of his own medical office, and that another of its crucial medical witnesses was a disgruntled racist who blamed his failure to pass the Florida medical exam on overly-ambitious “brown-skinned” foreigners who had more time than he did to study for the exam. We think these unfair character assassinations could have done nothing but inflame the jury against these witnesses, who were so essential to the plaintiff’s case, and in so doing, denied the plaintiff the substance of a fair trial below. See Charlotte Harbor & N. Ry. Co. v. Truette, 81 Fla. 152, 159, 87 So. 427, 429 (1921) (syllabus by court, no. 3); Jenkins v. State, 177 So. 2d 756, 757 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965).
Moreover, we are persuaded that the belated curative instruction as to the arson reference, apparently agreed to by both parties and given the day after the offending testimony was elicited, neither cured the sinister nature of the error complained of nor constituted a waiver of the error by the plaintiff. See Carls Markets, Inc. v. Meyer, 69 So. 2d 789, 794 (Fla.1953); Perper v. Edell, 44 So. 2d 78, 80 (Fla.1949); Dade County v. Clarson, 240 So. 2d 828, 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).
The judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Carlyle Francis Dempsey v. Shell OIL Co., 589 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…741 (Fla.), cert. den. 459 U.S. 960, 103 S.Ct. 274, 74 L.Ed.2d 213 (1982) for the proposition that evidence of particular acts of misconduct cannot be introduced to impeach the credibility of a witness. See also Simmons v. Baptist Hospital of Miami, 454 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). [*377] Section 90.608, Fla.Evid. Code (1991) governs impeachment by contradiction: (1) Any party, including the party calling the witness, may attack the credibility of a witness by: * * * * * * (5) Proof by other witnesses th…
-
Smithson v. V.M.S. Realty, Inc., 536 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…y the court’s instruction that a victim “is not expected nor required to use the same judgment and prudence that is required of him in the exercise of ordinary care in calmer and more deliberate moments_” See Simmons v. Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc., 454 So. 2d 681, 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Our resolution of this issue renders the remaining issues moot. Reversed and remanded for a new trial. . VMS incorrectly contends that this issue was not preserved for review. At trial, appellant’s counsel objected to the…1 / 2
-
DeSANTIS v. Acevedo, 528 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ntion that any collateral embarrassing incident in the witness’s past may not properly be the subject of cross-examination on the claim that it affects the issue of credibility. See § 90.1041)(a), Fla.Stat. (1987); Simmons v. Baptist Hosp. of Miami, 454 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). All of these objections were well-taken. The instances of alleged police misconduct DeSantis and Disgdiertt were cross-examined about were only marginally, if at all, relevant to the facts of this case. See Fulton, 335 So. 2d at…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Hitchcock v. State, 413 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1982)
- Carls Mkts., Inc. v. Meyer, 69 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1953)
- Simpson v. State, 418 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1982)
- Strickland v. Zant, 459 U.S. 960 (U.S. 1982)
- Gelabert v. State, 407 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Schwab v. Tolley, 345 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Charlotte Harbor & N. Ry. Co. v. Truette, 81 Fla. 152 (Fla. 1921)
- Fort Pierce Utils. Auth. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 459 U.S. 1156 (U.S. 1983)
- Chaparro-Almeida v. United States, 459 U.S. 1156 (U.S. 1983)
- Perper v. Edell, 44 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1949)