Opinion ID: 879244
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did counsel for britton make improper argument to the jury?

Text: In closing argument, Britton's counsel stated to the jury: ... And the evidence here is this: Mr. Britton has not been convicted of any criminal offense in regard to this situation.... In closing argument, he said to the jury in part: ... And we're not coming in here and saying that arsonists shouldn't be punished because they should, by the proper authoritiesnot some California insurance company. The ground of FIG's objection to the closing arguments is that evidence of nonprosecution for arson in cases for insurance proceeds is not admissible, relying on American Home Assurance Company v. Sunshine Supermarket, Inc. (3rd Cir. 1985), 753 F.2d 321, and other cases. The issue arose because of the provision in the stated value law, section 33-24-102, MCA, which provides that the valued policy law applies without criminal fault on the part of the insured. It was pertinent to Britton's case that the jury, in considering whether the valued policy law is applicable, should also know whether Britton was without criminal fault. Otherwise, under its terms, the valued policy statute would not apply. Prior to final argument, the matter was brought up to the court as follows: MR. DALE: And then in terms of conviction, we just get to say Mr. Britton hasn't been convicted of any criminal offense. THE COURT: Yes, and that's the end of that. FIG made no objection to this ruling. The argument made by Britton's counsel was proper in the circumstances.