CLEVE CARSON AND LAURA CARSON, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
PHILLIP IACONA AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Appellants' appeal of a negligence judgment was affirmed because they failed to demonstrate reversible error from the trial court's handling of opposing counsel's closing argument statements.
A trial court's sustaining of objections to opposing counsel's closing argument statements, without admonishing the jury, does not constitute reversible error absent a showing of inherent and actual prejudice.
[1] Attorneys are accorded wide latitude in presenting closing arguments to juries, and such arguments do not constitute grounds for a new trial unless they are highly prejud…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Carson instituted an automobile negligence action against Iacona and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. A jury verdict was ren…
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 Closing Argument Latitude cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants seek reversal of a final judgment, entered pursuant to a jury verdict, in favor of appellees in an automobile negligence action instituted by appellants.
In one of their points on appeal, appellants contend that the trial court committed reversible error when it merely sustained an objection to certain of appellees’ counsel’s statements during closing argument to the jury. It is alleged that the trial court should have admonished the jurors to disregard the statements. In jury trials, the parties’ attorneys are accorded wide latitude in presenting their arguments to the jury. Jury arguments will not be considered grounds for a new trial unless they are highly prejudicial and inflammatory. An appellant must assume the heavy burden of showing inherent and actual prejudice, which cannot be inferred solely from an adverse verdict. Here, the trial court sustained the appellants’ objections to the statements complained of in the presence of the jury. We do not believe that appellants have adequately demonstrated prejudicial error in this regard.
We have examined appellants’ remaining point on appeal and find it to be without merit.
The record on appeal, briefs and oral arguments of the parties having been fully considered, it is our conclusion that appellants have failed to show reversible error, and the judgment appealed herein is accordingly Affirmed.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peek v. State, 395 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1980)…to prior criminal convictions. Under section 775.084, a prior conviction is not final until appellate review has concluded. Joyner v. State, 158 Fla. 806, 30 So. 2d 304 (1947); Garrett v. State, 335 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Coleman v. State, 281 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). In view of the similarity in underlying philosophy between the two statutes, and in view of the awesome finality of the death penalty, I would hold that for purposes of section 921.-141(5)(b) a prior conviction may not be utilize…
-
Wheeler v. State, 465 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…the conviction. Joyner v. State, 158 Fla. 806, 30 So. 2d 304, 305 (1947). The trial court should have dismissed the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon charge. Cf. State v. Villafane, 444 So. 2d 71, 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Coleman v. State, 281 So. 2d 226, 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). Consequently, we reverse the trial court and set aside the judgment and sentence on the charge of felonious possession of a firearm. DANAHY and SCHOONOVER, JJ„ concur.…
-
State v. Villafane, 444 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…nce defendant had taken an appeal, his conviction of larceny of an automobile was not final and, therefore, could not be relied upon to convict him as a subsequent felony offender until affirmed by the appellate court. Id. at 877. Coleman v. State, 281 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) is a similar case involving Section 775.084, Florida Statutes. While enhancement of a charge is technically different from enhancement of punishment, the similarity is sufficient to justify analogizing from one to the other. In b…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence