WAL-MART STORES, INC., APPELLANT,

v.

LETICIA GUTIERREZ, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1999-04-28

No. 98-2484

Before COPE, LEVY and GODERICH, JJ.

731 So. 2d 151 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1999) Positive Treatment

Cited by 2 cases

Topics

Curative Instruction Preservation Of Error For Appeal Fundamental Error Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review)

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Curative Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., appeals from the denial of its motion for a new trial based upon the allegedly improper comments made by plaintiff’s counsel during closing argument. We affirm.

A review of the record shows that defense counsel failed to object to the majority of the allegedly improper comments, thereby not preserving them for appellate review. Gaines v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 701 So. 2d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Jackson, 433 So. 2d 1319, 1322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Further, the remarks were not so prejudicial or inflammatory as to consti tute fundamental error. Gaines, 701 So. 2d at 1193; Jackson, 433 So. 2d at 1322. As to those comments that defense counsel did object, we find that the trial court properly sustained the objections when necessary and properly gave curative instructions when necessary that obviated the harm. Sanchez v. Bengochea, 573 So. 2d 992, 993 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). On this basis, we find that the trial court, from its superior vantage point, did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

The remaining points raised on appeal lack merit.

Accordingly, we affirm.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Ada Barilari, 786 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)

…l were so prejudicial or inflammatory as to require mistrial, or a new trial, especially where the witness never answered the question and no evidence on the issue was ever [*673] presented to the jury”); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gutierrez, 731 So. 2d 151, 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“find[ing] that the trial court properly sustained the objections when necessary and properly gave curative instructions when necessary that obviated the harm,” and thus did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for…

Authorities Cited

Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Arlee Jackson and Mugge Rivers, 433 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
Gaines v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 701 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
Sanchez v. Bengochea, 573 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw