E.M., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Hagan v. SUN Bank OF Mid-Florida, N.A., 666 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
  …litan Dade County v. Dillon, 305 So. 2d 36, 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (citations omitted). See also Venning v. Roe, 616 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (reversing denial of new trial where counsel’s remarks were “highly prejudicial”); Davidojf v. Se-gert, 551 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (affirming new trial where counsel’s remarks “affected jury’s ability to judge evidence fairly”); Erie Ins. Co. v. Bushy, 394 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (reversing denial of new trial where counsel’s argument to jury was “hig…
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gold, 186 So. 3d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
  …the Defendant?” State Farm again objected, but the court overruled this objection. The jury found in favor of Gold. Analysis Although an. attorney is accorded great latitude in closing arguments, “this leeway is not unbridled.” Davidoff v. Segert, 551 So. 2d 1274, 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (per curiam). A motion for new trial should be granted if a party’s closing argument was “ ‘so highly prejudicial and inflammatory that it denied the opposing party its right to a fair trial.’” Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Tu…
• Summerville Dev., Inc. v. Dorta-Duque, 941 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
  …a. 3d DCA 2004) (citations omitted) (stating that the standard of review of an order granting a new trial is abuse of discretion). A new trial is warranted when comments affect the jury’s ability to judge the evidence fairly. See Davidoff v. Segert, 551 So. 2d 1274, 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The nature of the improper comments made in this case were egregious and may have likely swayed the jury. Accordingly, because we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the trial court’s order…

Authorities Cited

• E.L.S. v. State, 547 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
• Srenco v. Srenco, 549 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)