Opinion ID: 1616376
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Plaintiff's Comments During Closing Arguments

Text: Defendant argues that during closing arguments, on several separate occasions, plaintiff made highly prejudicial remarks, to which objections were made and sustained. Plaintiff's argument, made by James L. Klinefelter, Esq., and by John R. Phillips, Esq., contained the following remarks. MR. KLINEFELTER: I want to read a quote to you by C.C. Torbert MR. GAINES: I hate to interrupt MR. KLINEFELTER: It is not a case; it is just a statement from him about the importance of a Jury. THE COURT: All right, go on. MR. KLINEFELTER: I think they made more money, more profit MR. GAINES: We object, Your Honor. That is improper argument. THE COURT: Sustained. . . . . MR. PHILLIPS: There is one other thing that is involved in this case, punitive damages. Punitive damages are those damages which the law allows MR. GAINES: Excuse me. We object to this. There is no grounds for claiming any punitive damages in this case, none whatsoever. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Banner Welder is not going to live or die on whether you return a verdict in this case. They are a big business, and they make MR. GAINES: Excuse me again. I hate to interrupt; but that is objectionable. That is not proper argument. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. PHILLIPS: The art was good enough and known by this company to do exactly what I said they ought to have done. I bet you you couldn't buy one of those Shuttle Welders without getting MR. GAINES: That is improper argument; and we object. THE COURT: Sustained. Defendant contends that the remarks were ineradicable and improperly influenced the jury's verdict. We observe that although defendant objected to plaintiff's remarks, it did not request curative instructions or move for a mistrial. Moore v. State, 364 So.2d 411 at 414 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), recited the familiar rule concerning preservation of error in improper argument of counsel: In the absence of an objection by counsel, a motion to exclude, a ruling on the objection, or a refusal of the trial judge to rule thereon, improper argument or remarks by counsel are not subject for review by this court. Brown v. State, 50 Ala.App. 471, 280 So.2d 177; Veith v. State, 48 Ala.App. 688, 267 So.2d 480; Hutcherson v. State, 40 Ala.App. 417,114 So.2d 572. However, an exception to this rule exists where the comment is so prejudicial that its effect is ineradicable. Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36, 95 So. 171; Christian v. State, Ala. 351 So.2d 623; Gunnels v. Jimmerson, Ala. 331 So.2d 247. But, in view of the materiality of the appellant's mental condition, we do not believe that the comment falls within this exception. See Lyons v. State, 53 Ala.App. 111, 298 So.2d 42. It is our judgment that, without a timely objection, this court has nothing to consider. Lawrence v. Alabama Power Company, 385 So.2d 986 (Ala.1980); Richardson v. State, 354 So.2d 1193 (Ala.Cr.App.1978). The question which next arises is whether defendant's alleged error came within the exception to the general rule. We find that it does not. None of the remarks were so invidious that they could not have been cured by requested instructions from the trial court. Nor do we find that the four instances cited from the record, when considered together, cumulatively created ineradicable prejudice. Instead, we find that the error alleged by defendant falls within the situation considered by this court in Prescott v. Martin, 331 So.2d 240 (Ala.1976): We are not of the opinion that the statement in the instant case is so strongly prejudicial as to be beyond cure by the trial court. We also recognize that the trial court has a great deal of latitude in determining the prejudicial effect of statements made in argument. Central of Georgia Railway Company v. Phillips, 286 Ala. 365, 240 So.2d 118 (1970). See also: McClard v. Reid, 190 Tenn. 337, 229 S.W.2d 505, 506 (1950). Since the statement was of such a nature that it could be and was cured by the trial court, and since no motion for mistrial was made, there is no error for this court to consider. See, e.g., Montana v. Nenert, (Mo.App.1950), 226 S.W.2d 394, 400, 401, and Logwood v. Nelson, 35 Tenn.App. 639, 250 S.W.2d 582, 586 (1952). Prescott v. Martin , at 247. Accordingly, we find defendant's allegation of reversible error to be without merit.