268 A.3d 1165
R.I.2022Background
- Autumn McCarthy was born premature and admitted to Women & Infants Hospital (WIH) NICU; TPN administered via a peripheral IV extravasated, leading to emergency surgery and ongoing complications allegedly from care defects.
- Plaintiffs sued WIH for medical negligence, alleging failures in assessment and documentation of the IV site; a three-week jury trial followed.
- During WIH’s closing, defense counsel told the jury to, by their verdict, “tell [WIH] and their NICU to continue to take in the sickest kids,” prompting an immediate objection that the court sustained.
- WIH sought curative instructions after closing; the trial justice denied those motions and later denied plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial, finding the comments did not unduly prejudice the jury and noting jury instructions and the weight of the evidence.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the denial of the new-trial motion, concluded defense counsel’s remarks were improper and likely prejudicial, found the trial court erred in its analysis and in relying on general admonitions, and reversed for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were defense counsel’s closing remarks improper (appeal to passion/prejudice)? | Remarks improperly appealed to jurors’ sympathies to protect WIH’s mission and were calculated to sway verdict. | Remarks were fair comment, not an appeal to power or ability to pay, and within advocacy bounds. | Held improper: counsel’s request that the jury "send a message" was an appeal to passion and sympathy beyond proper argument. |
| Was the objection to the remarks preserved? | Objection was timely and sustained; plaintiffs had no opportunity to further move because the court cut off additional argument. | Trial court (initially) found preservation lacking. | Held preservation was adequate for review; the Supreme Court rejected the trial court’s failure-to-preserve rationale. |
| Did the remarks prejudice/taint the jury’s verdict? | Yes—remarks likely influenced jurors and prevented fair apportionment of liability. | No—the jury received multiple admonitions that attorney statements aren’t evidence and final instructions; weight of evidence supports verdict. | Held prejudicial: the trial justice erred by focusing on evidentiary weight instead of whether the jury was influenced; confidence in verdict was lacking. |
| Were curative instructions adequate to dissipate prejudice? | General admonitions were insufficient because they did not identify or directly counter the offending statement. | Multiple admonitions and standard jury instructions cured any potential prejudice. | Held inadequate: curative steps did not neutralize the prejudice; a new trial is required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norlin Music, Inc. v. Keyboard "88" Inc., 425 A.2d 74 (R.I. 1981) (articulates three-step test for improper argument: impropriety, influence, and efficacy of curative instruction)
- Anderson v. Botelho, 787 A.2d 468 (R.I. 2001) (directing jury to consider consequences of verdict is improper)
- Yammerino v. Cranston Tennis Club, Inc., 416 A.2d 698 (R.I. 1980) (exaggerated sympathy or passion can taint verdict and warrant new trial)
- Patel v. Patel, 252 A.3d 1221 (R.I. 2021) (standard of review for trial-justice rulings on new-trial motions)
- Heneault v. Lantini, 213 A.3d 410 (R.I. 2019) (trial justice’s role as super juror in new-trial analysis)
- Cochran v. Dube, 330 A.2d 76 (R.I. 1975) (repeated prejudicial references can require new trial absent curative instruction)
- State v. Taylor, 425 A.2d 1231 (R.I. 1981) (curative instructions must identify and unequivocally repudiate offending remarks)
- State v. Belen, 220 A.3d 1224 (R.I. 2019) (assessing probable effect of improper statements on outcome)
- State v. Martinez, 624 A.2d 291 (R.I. 1993) (no fixed formula; evaluate probable effect of improper statements)