JEANNETTE STRONG, APPELLANT,
v.
MT. DORA GROWERS COOPERATIVE, A FLORIDA CORPORATION AND BOBBY JAMES, JR., 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.
Jeannette Strong appeals an adverse no-fault insurance threshold injury determination, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by limiting her closing argument to twenty minutes contingent on waiving a jury charge conference. The Florida appellate court agrees and reverses, finding that conditioning closing argument time on waiving a party's right to be heard on jury instructions constitutes reversible error.
The court held that conditioning the length of closing argument upon whether a charge conference is required constitutes clear abuse of discretion and reversible error. A party has a fundamental right to be heard on proposed jury charges and cannot be required to waive this right to obtain adequate closing argument time.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by making the length of closing argument contingent upon whether a charge conference is required.
[2] A party has a right to be heard on proposed jury charges and is not required to waive this right to obtain adequate time for closing arguments.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“It is clearly an abuse of discretion for a court to make the length of closing argument contingent upon whether a charge conference is required. A party has a clear right to be heard on proposed charges. He is not required or expected to waive this right in order to obtain adequate time to present his closing arguments.”
Establishes the core holding that conditioning closing argument time on waiving jury charge conference rights is reversible error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStrong was injured as a passenger in a car struck by a truck driven by Bobby James, an employee of Mt. Dora Growers Cooperative. The case turned on wh…
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 Preservation Of Issues For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
UPCHURCH, Chief Judge.
Jeannette Strong appeals an adverse finding that she has not sustained a permanent injury which met the threshold requirements of the Florida No Fault Law. Strong was injured while a passenger in a car which was struck by a truck driven by Bobby James, an employee of Mt. Dora Growers Cooperative.
Strong argues that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting counsel to twenty minutes in closing argument. We agree.
The day before closing arguments, the trial court informed the parties that if a charge conference were not required the court would allow thirty minutes for each side for closing arguments but, if a conference were required, counsel would be limited to twenty minutes. After the charge conference, Strong’s counsel stated that he would like thirty minutes for closing arguments. This request was denied by the court. It is clearly an abuse of discretion for a court to make the length of closing argument contingent upon whether a charge conference is required. A party has a clear right to be heard on proposed charges. He is not required or expected to waive this right in order to obtain adequate time to present his closing arguments.
Ordinarily the length of time allotted to closing argument is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. See Rodriquez v. State, 472 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). In establishing the appropriate time limitations for closing argument, the court should consider the complexity of the testimony and issues, the number of witnesses, the length of their testimony, the seriousness of the case, and a host of other factors which distinguish one trial from another. Woodham v. Roy, 471 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). In all events, the time must be reasonable and should permit counsel an adequate opportunity to relate the factual argument to the governing principles of law. Id. For a court to set arbitrary time limits on counsel’s closing argument to the jury is an abuse of discretion and therefore reversible error. Maleh v. Florida East Coast Properties, Inc., 491 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Woodham v. Roy.
In this instance, there were over thirteen witnesses, twenty evidentiary exhibits and over five hundred pages of testimony. While this case turned on a single question, that is, whether the threshold requirements of the Florida No Fault Law were met, the final argument encompassed the entire dispute. Therefore, the court’s error in making the length of closing argument contingent upon counsel waiving the chargé conference was reversible error. The Cooperative’s argument that Strong failed to preserve this issue for review is without merit. Counsel for Strong clearly asked for more time, claiming that he could not present the case within the court’s limitation, and after the charge conference he again requested more time. He is not required to say the magic words, “I object” when it is obvious this would be a futile act. See Thomas v. State, 419 So. 2d 634 (Fla.1982).
REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.
ORFINGER, J., concurs.
COWART, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pettry v. Pettry, 706 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…h DCA 1993), and the denial of this right is fundamental error. See Lopez v. Lopez, 689 So. 2d 1218, 1219, n. 1. Moreover, due process requires that a party be given the opportunity to present closing argument. Strong v. Mt Dora Growers Cooperative, 495 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Woodham v. Roy, 471 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Chalk v. State, 443 So. 2d 421 (Fla.App. 1984). Perhaps the additional witnesses would not have impressed the court, but the husband had the right to present them and to argue…
-
Knapp v. Shores, 550 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…duced concerning a claimed brain injury to the plaintiff Jeffrey Knapp. Bell v. Harland Rayvals Trans., Ltd., 501 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (thirty-minute limitation on closing argument held reversible error); Strong v. Mt. Dora Growers Coop., 495 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (twenty-minute limitation on closing argument held reversible error); Maleh v. Florida East Coast Properties, Inc., 491 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (fifteen-minute limitation on closing argument held reversible error). [*1157]…
-
Dobson v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 217 So. 3d 1173 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…that due process requires party be given opportunity to be heard, to testify, to call witnesses on his behalf, and to present closing argument (citing Vazquez v. Vazquez, 626 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Strong v. Mt. Dora [*1175] Growers Coop., 495 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986))). REVERSED AND REMANDED. BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., and JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Thomas v. State, 419 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1982)
- Rodriguez v. State, 472 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Woodham v. ROY, 471 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Radin v. Radin, 491 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Maleh v. Fla. E. Coast Props., Inc., 491 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)