66 So. 3d 1064
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Pineiro, as personal representative, sued Crowe and later the City of Orlando for wrongful death of Edwin Alvarado after a high-speed police pursuit precedes a fatal collision.
- Jury allocated 55% fault to the City and 45% to Crowe; final judgment followed.
- City challenged closing arguments as improper and evidentiary rulings, seeking a new trial.
- Trial featured inflammatory, send-a-message, and other improper closing arguments attributed to Pineiro's counsel, plus several evidentiary disputes.
- This appeal centers on the propriety of closing arguments and the admissibility of certain evidence, with reversal sought for a new trial.
- Court concluded the closing arguments, taken cumulatively with other errors, deprived the City of a fair trial and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were closing arguments improper and reversible? | Pineiro argues arguments were proper responses to evidence and necessary to convey damages. | City contends closing comments were inflammatory, prejudicial, and unsupported by evidence, requiring reversal. | Yes; reversible error due to inflammatory and improper closing. |
| Did send-a-message arguments and value-of-life analogies require reversal? | Pineiro maintains arguments appropriately addressed damages and societal harm. | City contends send-a-message and value-of-life analogies were improper and prejudicial. | Yes; cumulative improper arguments support new trial. |
| Are unobjected closing arguments reviewable for reversal under Murphy? | Unobjected remarks should be considered if improper, harmful, incurable. | Unobjected remarks may be reviewed but must meet Murphy criteria for reversal. | Yes; several unobjected remarks fail Murphy criteria individually but contribute to prejudice. |
| Was the trial court correct to preclude Crowe's guilty-plea evidence? | Crowe's plea and conviction history are admissible as admissions against interest under §772.14. | Crowe is Fabre defendant; his criminal conviction should not bind the non-parties. | Admissible; retrial may admit Crowe's guilty-plea and conviction. |
| Was the trial court correct to limit inquiry into witnesses' prior arrests under 90.608/90.610? | Prior arrests show bias against City and are relevant under 90.608. | Limited under 90.610 to convictions or dishonesty crimes; 90.608 not properly applied. | Remand for proper applying 90.403 balancing of probative value and prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Int'l Robotic Sys. Inc., 766 So.2d 1010 (Fla.2000) (guides new-trial standard for preserved and unpreserved closing arguments)
- Bocher v. Glass, 874 So.2d 701 (Fla.1st DCA 2004) (limits on improper closing arguments; need for mistrial standards)
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2006) (closing arguments must not inflame passions or deviate from evidence)
- Hill v. State, 515 So.2d 176 (Fla.1987) (closing argument framework; apply evidence to law)
- Walt Disney World Co. v. Blalock, 640 So.2d 1156 (Fla.5th DCA 1994) (cautions against inflammatory closing arguments)
- Knoizen v. Bruegger, 713 So.2d 1071 (Fla.5th DCA 1998) (closing argument must stay within the record and applicable law)
- Venning v. Roe, 616 So.2d 604 (Fla.2d DCA 1993) (limits on closing argument scope)
- Fasani v. Kowalski, 43 So.3d 805 (Fla.3d DCA 2010) (value-of-life argument improper in damages context)
- Kloster Cruise Ltd. v. Grubbs, 762 So.2d 552 (Fla.3d DCA 2000) (send-a-message argument improper; punitive tone in damages case)
- Carnival Corp. v. Pajares, 972 So.2d 973 (Fla.3d DCA 2007) (golden rule arguments to be avoided; closing-argument ethics)
- Werneck v. Worrall, 918 So.2d 383 (Fla.5th DCA 2006) (cumulative prejudice standard for new trial)
- Chin v. Caiaffa, 42 So.3d 300 (Fla.3d DCA 2010) (avoid improper references; sympathy arguments caution)
- Durousseau v. State, 55 So.3d 543 (Fla.2010) (jurisprudence on expert evidence weight; jury credibility)