Opinion ID: 2493631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 27

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in overruling Dedeaux's objection to Gulfport's closing argument.

Text: ¶ 83. On direct examination, Stokes testified that his total valuation of $3,691,328 constituted a cash payment from which Dedeaux would earn $237,000 annually if invested at a 6.44% rate, well above the $25,000 in annual lost profit which Dedeaux would suffer. Dedeaux objected, the trial court sustained the objection, and the jury was instructed to disregard this testimony as irrelevant. ¶ 84. Nonetheless, in closing argument, counsel for Gulfport stated: we're exchanging ... $3,600,000 for the assets. It's not like ... [Gulfport] is not giving them anything. And ladies and gentlemen, if the Dedeaux people want to go squander that money that's fine.... They don't have to invest it where they could earn a lot more than $25,000 a year .... That's what they were earning off those assets. (Emphasis added.) Counsel for Dedeaux objected, maintaining that he's arguing a methodology which is not used in this case. The trial judge overruled the objection, in spite of his earlier ruling, stating that the jury has heard the facts. They can determine for themselves. Counsel for Gulfport then added, [a]t $25,000 a year I think I wrote down about 140 years for them to get $3.6 million. ¶ 85. Dedeaux contends that the trial court's decision to overrule the closing argument objection was erroneous, as it was contrary to the earlier ruling that the investment value of cash paid for the assets was irrelevant[;] effectively authorized a methodology for determining value... contrary to jury instructions[;] and the argument itself invoked the regulated income approach, which had been the primary basis for reversal in Dedeaux I .... ¶ 86. Based upon the trial court's ruling that Stokes's testimony on investment return was irrelevant and to be disregarded by the jury, this Court finds that the closing argument of counsel for Gulfport was not based upon admissible evidence. See Eckman v. Moore, 876 So.2d 975, 986 (Miss.2004) (quoting Clemons v. State, 320 So.2d 368, 371 (Miss.1975)) (when counsel departs entirely from the evidence in his argument, or makes statements intended solely to excite the passions or prejudices of the jury, or makes inflammatory and damaging statements of fact not found in the evidence, the trial judge should intervene to prevent an unfair argument.). Thus, the trial court erred in overruling Dedeaux's objection to Gulfport's closing argument.