GEORGE W. GARBUTT, APPELLANT,
v.
ROSEMARY LAFARNARA, APPELLEE
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.
George Garbutt appeals a $1.75 million jury verdict against him, arguing that the opposing counsel's improper closing argument warrants a new trial. The court agrees, finding the error was preserved through a timely motion for mistrial and was sufficiently egregious to require reversal and remand for a new trial.
The court holds that the improper closing argument was preserved and sufficiently egregious, and therefore the motion for mistrial made prior to the case going to the jury should have been granted. A new trial is warranted.
[1] A motion for mistrial made before the jury retires is sufficient to preserve an argument of improper jury argument for appeal, even if objections were not made to every i…
[2] A new trial may be granted when improper closing arguments are sufficiently egregious and preserved by a timely motion for mistrial.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 conclude that the improper closing argument was preserved and sufficiently egregious so that the motion for mistrial made prior to the case going to the jury should have been granted.”
This statement establishes the court's holding that the error was both preserved through the mistrial motion and serious enough to warrant reversal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRosemary LaFarnara obtained a $1.75 million judgment against George W. Garbutt based on a jury verdict. The trial court and the appellate court found …
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 Improper Argument To Jury cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Chief Judge.
Rosemary LaFarnara obtained a $1.75 million judgment against George W. Gar-butt based on a jury verdict. Mr. Garbutt seeks a new trial, contending the verdict resulted from improper jury argument by Ms. LaFarnara’s trial counsel. We agree and, thus, reverse and remand for a new trial.
This is not the first time this court has considered this case. We previously affirmed the trial court’s denial of a new trial, but in so doing we certified a question to our supreme court. See Garbutt v. LaFarnara, 754 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (Garbutt I). The question that troubled this court involved whether the improper argument was preserved as a basis for a new trial when objections were made to some, but not all, of the improper arguments and a motion for mistrial based on improper argument was made before the case was submitted to the jury. Both the trial court and this court found there were numerous instances of improper argument, but we agreed that the motion for mistrial, made before the jury retired, was not sufficient to meet the “contemporaneous objection rule.”
In response, the supreme court stated that the certified question had been answered in Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla.2000), decided after Garbutt I, and it remanded the case to this court for reconsideration. Garbutt v. LaFarnara, 795 So. 2d 957 (Fla.2001) (Garbutt II). In Murphy, the court provided guidelines for granting a new trial based on unobjected-to closing argument, noting the failure to object during closing argument or request ”a mistrial during or at the close of such argument.” Murphy, 766 So. 2d at 1031. Based on this language, we conclude the error was preserved here, and the Murphy analysis for unpreserved error is unnecessary.
We conclude that the improper closing argument was preserved and sufficiently egregious so that the motion for mistrial made prior to the case going to the jury should have been granted. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
CASANUEVA, J., Concurs.
THREADGILL, J., Dissents with opinion.
THREADGILL, Judge,
Dissenting.
For the same reasons that I stated in Garbutt v. LaFarnara, 754 So. 2d 727 (Garbutt I), I would affirm. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shafter G. Wyatt, III v. Marilyn L. Marcus, D.O., 949 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…at 1028-31. Such factors are only to be considered when there is a failure to object during closing argument or a failure to request a mistrial based on such statements during or at the close of such argument. See id. at 1031; Garbutt v. LaFarnara, 807 So. 2d 83, 83 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In this case, all of the improper comments cited by the trial court in its order granting a new trial were addressed through the trial court’s consideration of defense counsel’s motions for mistrials both during and at the…
Authorities Cited
- Murphy v. Int'l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000)
- Garbutt v. LaFARNARA, 754 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Garbutt v. Lafarnara, 795 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 2001)