Opinion ID: 1206745
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did counsel for defendant physicians commit misconduct requiring reversal?

Text: Appellants first complaint is that counsel caused false, misleading and prejudicial information to be placed in the record. Dr. B, a witness called as an expert by the defendants, had examined the child and all the child's medical records. Dr. B made a report which was inserted into medical records, which report said A C.T. Scan had been recommended done and not done. The first reference to a C.T. Scan was elicited by appellant's counsel on cross-examination. Defendants point out that Dr. B as a physician, faculty member, member of the staff of the teaching hospitals, and chairman of a department at the Health Sciences Center, upon examination of the appellant, would have been remiss not to have placed a copy of his report of examination in the patient records of the institution. This report was not a surprise to appellants. It was furnished prior to the trial and was in the hands of appellants' expert witnesses. The trial court, acting within its discretion, refused to allow appellant to summon co-counsel to the witness stand to refute evidence elicited as to the requested CT scan. The trial court looked at this issue carefully and then admonished the jury to disregard the issue of the requested CT scan as it was of absolutely no relevance in their decision. Appellants secured an affidavit from a juror concerning what the jurors had based their decision upon. With respect to juror affidavits this Court has determined: Public policy does not allow jurors to be heard by affidavit or otherwise as to how or what factors were considered in rendering a verdict unless there be actionable or criminal overtones present. Holden v. Coussens, 576 P.2d 758, 761 (Okl. 1978). The conduct of a trial is a matter of the sound discretion of the trial court, and in absence of abuse of that discretion, the trial court's ruling will not be disturbed. [8] Appellants further complained of repeated verbal personal attacks by opposing counsel during trial and in closing argument. Such examples of misconduct however, if they occurred, were not targeted by objections and they are not subject to review by ourselves. We have on numerous occasions held: Alleged prejudicial remarks of counsel in his argument to the jury are not preserved for review by this court unless objected to ... at the time the remarks are made... . [9] The trial court considered all allegations of improper conduct at the hearing on motion for new trial. We find no error in his refusal to grant a new trial on these grounds.