METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LUIS G. CIFUENTES, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARTA CIFUENTES AND ON BEHALF OF LUIS G. CIFUENTES, SURVIVING SPOUSE, AND CECILIA CIFUENTES, SURVIVING CHILD, 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.
Metropolitan Dade County appealed a $1.11 million wrongful death judgment, arguing that inflammatory and emotional testimony from the plaintiff's witnesses and counsel's improper final argument deprived it of a fair trial. The appellate court agreed, reversing the judgment and ordering a new trial because the cumulative emotional impact violated fairness standards.
Yes. The cumulative effect of the emotional testimony and counsel's improper final argument was so devastating that it deprived Dade County of a fair trial. The trial court should have granted the motion for new trial.
[1] Improper and inflammatory remarks by a witness and counsel during a trial can deprive a party of a fair trial, warranting a new trial.
[2] A trial court errs in denying a motion for a new trial when improper and inflammatory remarks made during the proceedings have a devastating overall impact.
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“We think the overall impact of these aforesaid emotional outbursts at trial was so devastating that Dade County was deprived of a fair trial.”
States the court's holding that the cumulative effect of improper emotional appeals violated the defendant's right to a fair trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarta Cifuentes died, and her family—husband Luis and children including Cecilia—sued Dade County for wrongful death. At trial, the deceased's daughte…
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 Motion For Mistrial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Metropolitan Dade County appeals a final judgment entered upon an adverse jury verdict in a wrongful death action below. We find no merit in any of the points raised on appeal, save one. We agree that the trial court erred in denying Dade County’s motion for new trial based on certain improper and inflammatory remarks which were made by one of the plaintiffs witnesses and by plaintiffs counsel during the trial below. We, accordingly, reverse the final judgment under review and remand the cause to the trial court for a new trial.
During the trial of this cause, the daughter of the plaintiffs decedent testified before the jury that she had moved to this country “when I heard ... that she [my mother] got killed like a dog.” T.232-33. A pregnant pause of 20-30 seconds by plaintiffs counsel followed, and a defense motion for mistrial based on this remark was denied. The same witness further testified:
“I feel so sorry for everybody, and the only thing that I think is, you know, my mother when she died, I was 26 years old and my little sister, she was 13. I used to think about, if I were 13 and I knew about the death of my mother, I would kill myself.” T.238-39 (emphasis added).
A defense motion for a mistrial based on this remark was also denied. Beyond that, another of the deceased’s daughters cried while testifying at trial and later was winked-at by a member of the jury; the plaintiff, the deceased’s husband, cried while both of his daughters were testifying; and members of the deceased’s family cried in the audience at various times during the trial. It was, to say the least, a highly emotional trial involving the death of a wife and mother of a closely knit family.
With this backdrop, plaintiff’s counsel gave a highly emotional final argument to the jury during which he clearly exceeded the limits of propriety. He stated:
“I don’t have any thoughts on damages. I have no idea what to say. I know that it was a devastating horrible loss to these people. I know last night I did not sleep. I know that last night was probably the first time in a long time that I told my wife that I loved her. I know that I was in fear last night, not fear of dying but fear of living if someone I loved died.”
T.394 (emphasis added).
A defense objection to this argument was sustained, but the trial court did not, on its own motion, rebuke counsel for this highly improper argument or declare a mistrial. The jury thereafter deliberated but forty minutes in the case and returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $1,110,000 total damages.
We think the overall impact of these aforesaid emotional outbursts at trial was so devastating that Dade County was deprived of a fair trial. The trial court should consequently have granted Dade County’s post-trial motion for a new trial below. Russell, Inc. v. Trento, 445 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); accord Seaboard Air Line Railroad v. Strickland, 88 So. 2d 519 (Fla.1956); Eastern Steamship Lines, Inc. v. Martial, 380 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1115 (Fla.1980).
The final 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
-
Mercury Ins. Co. OF Fla. v. Moreta, 957 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…and his grandfather walking in the Florida woods when counsel was a child); Muhammad v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., 668 So. 2d 254, 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (observing that “irrelevant familial rhetoric must not be condoned”); Metro. Dade County v. Cifuentes, 473 So. 2d 297, 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (holding that closing argument by plaintiffs counsel in a wrongful death action about telling his wife the previous night for the first time in a long time that he loved her and about his fear of living if someone he loved di…
-
Pier 66 Co. v. Poulos, 542 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…sm which pervaded the trial which, combined with inadmissible evidence and improper argument, resulted in unfair prejudice to the defense. Cf. Del Monte Banana Co. v. Chacon, 466 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Metropolitan Dade County v. Cifuentes, 473 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Kane Furniture Corp. v. Miranda, 506 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 515 So. 2d 230 (Fla.1987). See also Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1970); Harbor Insurance Company v. Miller, 487 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. d…
-
Ballard v. Am. Land Cruisers, Inc., 537 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…explainable only as the result of the prejudicial impact of the impertinent issue to which we have referred. Harbor Ins. Co. v. Miller, 487 So. 2d 46 (Fla.3d DCA 1986), review denied, 496 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1986); Metropolitan Dade County v. Cifuentes, 473 So. 2d 297 (Fla.3d DCA 1985); see Martin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 392 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The record shows that, not knowing the extent of Catherine’s injury, Ms. Ballard was called to the hospital where her daughter lay critically injured…
Authorities Cited
- Seaboard AIR Line R.R. Co. v. Strickland, 88 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1956)
- E. S.S. Lines, Inc. v. Lamy Martial, 380 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Russell, Inc. v. Trento, 445 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)