 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Oliveaux v. St. Francis Medical Center12/15/2004
blanket objection to the jury charge, without specific grounds, did not provide the district court with a fair opportunity to correct erroneous or improper charges. Kose v. Cablevision of Shreveport, supra; Sanders v. Bain, 31,362 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/12/98), 722 So. 2d 386; Luman v. Highlands Ins. Co., 25,445 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/23/94), 632 So. 2d 910. It also does not provide this court with any basis for reversal. The district court is not obligated to give the precise charge requested by the parties, but one that correctly reflects the relevant issues and law. La. C.C.P. art. 1793; Ferrell v. Minden Family Care Center, 30,088 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/19/97), 704 So. 2d 969, writ denied, 98-0392 (La. 3/27/98), 716 So. 2d 891. For the reasons already expressed, this jury charge does not present any specific errors or improprieties, general unfairness or lack of balance, or "plain and fundamental error" such as was found in Chatelain v. Rabalais, supra.
This assignment of error lacks merit.
Closing Argument
By his fourth assignment, Oliveaux urges the district court did not give plaintiff's counsel adequate time to present closing argument. He contends that even though the attorneys received equal time to argue, "one plaintiff attorney stood opposite a team of defense attorneys." Without elaboration, he argues this limited his opportunity to explain how the law applied to the case.
Dr. Perkins responds that Oliveaux did not object to the allocation of time for closing arguments and has shown no prejudice arising from it.
The record does not show that Oliveaux asked the court for additional time to argue, objected to the allocation of time for argument, or lacked a reasonable opportunity to object. La. C.C.P. art. 1635. Without a timely objection to the court's trial procedure, the issue is not properly preserved for appeal. Holmes v. Peoples State Bank, 35,072 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/26/01), 796 So. 2d 176, writ denied, 2001-3139 (La. 2/1/02), 808 So. 2d 342, cert. denied, 537 U.S. 897, 123 S.Ct. 197 (2002).
Moreover, our review of this alleged error would be limited to whether the district court abused its great discretion in controlling the proceedings at trial. La. C.C.P. arts. 1631, 1632; Temple v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 330 So. 2d 891 (La. 1976). In Mercer v. Freuhauf Corp., 492 So. 2d 538 (La. App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 496 So. 2d 350 (1986), the district court allowed the plaintiff's counsel in a products liability case 30 minutes for closing argument and 15 minutes for rebuttal, while the manufacturer's counsel received only 30 minutes total. The court of appeal disapproved the unequal argument time but could find no prejudice or abuse of discretion. Likewise, we would perceive no abuse of the district court's discretion in the instant case. This assignment lacks merit.
Admission of Investigator's Report
By his fifth assignment, Oliveaux urges the district court erred in "excluding the investigator's report and in prohibiting plaintiff's counsel from disclosing to the jury that evidence material to plaintiff's case was mislaid after being placed under the control of a team of attorneys which included Dr. Perkins's husband." He contends that the contents of the file are not hearsay and thus admissible. In support he cites Williams v. Augustus, 506 So. 2d 630 (La. App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 508 So. 2d 66 (1987).
The "investigator's report" was actually a letter from an Indigent Defender Board ("IDB") investigator, offered to support the testimony of a witness, Debra Craighead. Ms. Craighead, who had babysat Haley for a few weeks in late October and early November 1993, testified that Ms. Pace did not
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|