Opinion ID: 1668313
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: could the trial court have used the comments of jerzak's counsel during closing arguments as grounds for granting a new trial?

Text: We previously detailed some of the comments of Jerzak's counsel during closing argument. Judge Timm found that such comments amounted, to a calculated course of misconduct which was unprofessional, offensive, and exceeded the bounds of trial advocacy. We agree. [4] See Anderson v. Johnson, 441 N.W.2d 675, 677 (S.D.1989). See also Degen v. Bayman, 90 S.D. 400, 403, 241 N.W.2d 703, 704 (1972) (noting the court's earlier ruling that the case be retried because of improper statements made by counsel in closing argument.). In Anderson, we stated that such comments would justify granting a mistrial, where one is requested. 441 N.W.2d at 677. In the present case, although Junge objectedwith some objections sustained, and others overruledno mistrial was requested. Although the court chose to state other grounds in its order granting a new trial, under SDCL 15-6-59(d), as well as cases previously cited in this opinion, the court may use such improper comments in closing argument as grounds for granting a new trial. Larsen, 43 S.D. at 227, 178 N.W. at 877; Case, 488 N.W.2d at 888; SDCL 15-6-59(d). The order granting a new trial is affirmed. MILLER, C.J., concurs. HENDERSON, J., concurs specially. SABERS and AMUNDSON, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.