 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Heavner v. Cha2/15/2005
stained objections to these statements, the impropriety was gross enough to justify reversing the trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial. Id. at 729, 373 S.E.2d at 151. In reaching this decision, the Court emphasized the interjection of religious values in defense counsel's attack on plaintiff. Id. Furthermore, the Court noted that the trial court merely sustained the objections, where it "should have also directed defense counsel to refrain from such statements and clearly admonished the jury to totally disregard them in reaching its decision." Id.
In the present case, although we do not approve of defense counsel's statements, we conclude that they were not nearly as extreme or prejudicial as those in Corwin. Moreover, the trial court here, unlike that in Corwin, not only sustained objections to defense counsel's inflammatory statements, but also admonished him not to make such statements and, twice during the defense's closing argument, told the jury to disregard the improper comments and inferences made by defense counsel. As mentioned earlier, where such curative instructions are issued, counsel's remarks arepresumed to be harmless as, " t must be assumed that the jurors were honest and intelligent enough to heed the warning of the court." Davenport, supra, 156 N.C. at 495, 72 S.E. at 14 (1911).
In keeping with the strict abuse-of-discretion standard, our reviewing courts are reluctant to overturn a trial court's decision not to grant a new trial based on counsel misconduct. For instance, in State v. Larrimore, statements that defense counsel "cast up" "smoke . . . smog . . . dust . . . and dirt" because he did not want the jury to see the truth were held to not be grossly improper. 340 N.C. at 158-59, 456 S.E.2d at 810 (1995). Plaintiff cites numerous cases from other jurisdictions in support of her claim that she is entitled to a new trial. However, as our Courts have spoken to this issue sufficiently, we decline to follow the precedent of other jurisdictions. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court here did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial.
Plaintiff's second argument in her brief states that the "district court committed reversible error in denying the plaintiff's motion for a new trial." Plaintiff's argument, in support of which she cites no pertinent authority, appears to be that as a matter of policy this Court should reject the abuse-of- discretion standard and adopt a de novo review. This argument has no merit.
Affirmed.
Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge TIMMONS-GOODSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
|