 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Campbell v. Warren Gen. Hosp.12/12/1994
attempt to impeach Dr. Battle's testimony. Dr. Battle testified that he was unfamiliar with each article defense counsel presented.
In numerous discussions with counsel for both parties, the trial court stated that medical journal articles would not be allowed to be mentioned during closing argument. The trial court granted appellees' motion for new trial in part because defense counsel in closing argument chose to ignore the trial court's instruction in limine regarding medical journal articles.
A determination of misconduct by counsel is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Pierson v. Hermann (1965), 3 Ohio App.2d 398, 400, 32 O.O.2d 533, 534, 210 N.E.2d 893, 895-896. While mindful that counsel is afforded wide latitude in addressing the jury during closing argument, this court will not reverse the decision of the trial court absent an abuse of discretion. Lance v. Leohr (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 297, 9 OBR 544, 459 N.E.2d 1315; Stelma v. Juguilon (1992), 73 Ohio App.3d 377, 597 N.E.2d 523. An abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 5 OBR 481, 450 N.E.2d 1140.
The trial court is in the best position to observe any adverse effects defense counsel's closing argument had on the jury. If defense counsel's comments prevented appellees from receiving a fair trial, the granting of a new trial under Civ.R. 59(A) was proper.
Appellant's second assignment of error is overruled.
"III. The trial court erred by not allowing Dr. Bisel, a former defendant in this case, to testify that his management of the plaintiff's care was appropriate."
Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it did not allow Dr. Bisel, a former defendant in this case, to testify that his management of Campbell's care was appropriate.
This alleged error occurred at trial and is not germane to appellees' motion for new trial. As we have already determined that the trial court did not err in granting appellees a new trial, a discussion concerning the testimony of Dr. Bisel at trial is not necessary.
Accordingly, all assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.
NADER, P.J., and MAHONEY, J., concur.
EDWARD J. MAHONEY, J., retired, of the Ninth Appellate District, sitting by assignment.
|