Opinion ID: 2381401
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Statements by Counsel

Text: The Fullers argue that the court erred by failing to reprimand Rich's counsel and give a curative instruction to the jury in response to three statements by Rich's counsel in closing argument. The Fullers, however, failed to make timely objections to these statements. When the issue of the propriety of a party's closing argument is not properly preserved, we review the issue only for obvious error affecting substantial rights. Grover v. Minette-Mills, Inc., 638 A.2d 712, 716 (Me.1994). The first challenged statement is in reference to Rich's real estate expert, George Koutalakis. In a previous case on which several of the jurors in this case served, Koutalakis testified as an expert for a woman represented by the Fullers' attorney. In closing, Rich's attorney stated: And you heard from George Koutalakis. I understand some of you may have seen Mr. Koutalakis as a witness in a previous case. You know he is an expert in land values. Although this statement was improper, we cannot conclude that it affected the substantial rights of the Fullers. The Fullers argue that two other statements constitute the expression of personal opinion. First, in commenting on the testimony of Nelson, Rich's attorney stated: You heard Mr. Nelson yesterday, darndest performance I have seen in awhile. He said, oh, we just do informal appraisals. And I said, gee, doesn't this firm on your letterhead say you have to have a formal appraisal? He said, well, yeah, that is what it says, but there wasn't any formal appraisal. Second, in comparing the Fullers' testimony to other evidence, Rich's attorney stated: Ladies and gentlemen, it may be that I have got too cynical over the years I am practicing law but I candidly have to say to you those pieces don't go together in my mind. An attorney may not assert a personal opinion as to the credibility of a witness. M.Bar R. 3.7(e)(2)(v). Ill-chosen words about witnesses, however, do not necessarily constitute obvious error. See State v. Comer, 644 A.2d 7, 9-10 (Me.1994). The above statements in this civil case fall short of obvious error.