Opinion ID: 2571591
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: The City Attorney's Speaking Objection

Text: Finally, the Sextons take issue with the City attorney's speaking objection during the City's cross-examination of Mr. Sexton. In the presence of the jury, the City attorney moved to strike Mr. Sexton's testimony: Your Honor, I'm going to move to strike the witness' testimony as being an improper valuation in violation of the statute. He's clearly been  based upon his deposition testimony, had values assigned to each one of these categories and added them up. Outside the presence of the jury, the Sextons' attorney then moved for a mistrial, arguing that the objection . . . made in front of the jury . . . was highly prejudicial and that before trial the court had cautioned counsel not to make any speaking objections. The judge denied the motion for a mistrial. Although the judge thought the City's attorney gave more information than needed, the judge noted that this may have been because there was a long gap as the judge paused to think through the evidence being presented by the witness and consider the objection. The judge noted that the City's attorney may have taken [the gap] for a requirement for a little more articulation. Additionally, the judge concluded that there was no prejudicial error. We agree with this conclusion. The jury was properly instructed regarding fair market value and the calculation of damages. The Sextons fail to show how the City attorney's objection was prejudicial. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Sextons' motion for a new trial. Affirmed.