Opinion ID: 1673978
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: GMAC's Miscellaneous Issues

Text: GMAC raised issues in his brief which it did not list in his Statement of the Issues.
Through the first of these two remaining issues, GMAC contends that the jury's verdict on liability and compensatory damages traversed the overwhelming weight of the evidence and, therefore, the trial judge erred in denying its motion for a new trial. GMAC substantiates its contention by citing the alleged errors which have been discussed in the preceding sections of this opinions ( e.g., Ivy's references to insurance and to the writ of replevin). This Court has perused the evidence and concludes that the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying GMAC's motion. See Kitchens v. Mississippi Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 560 So.2d 129, 132 (Miss. 1989) (discussing standard applicable to review of judge's denial of motion for a new trial).
Through the second of the remaining issues, GMAC contends that Ivy improperly employed the Golden Rule during his closing argument and that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a mistrial. A Golden Rule argument is one by which jurors are urged to place themselves or members of their families or friends in the place of [the] person who has been offended and to render a verdict as if they or either of them or member of their families or friends was similarly situated. Black's Law Dictionary 623 (5th ed. 1979); see also Danner v. Mid-State Paving Co., 252 Miss. 776, 173 So.2d 608, 611 (1965). GMAC failed to cite the specific instances when Ivy allegedly committed the Golden Rule violations. Perusal of Ivy's closing argument, however, reveals two instances to which GMAC may be referring. However, if these are the references, this Court concludes that Ivy's references to the people of Smith County did not constitute Golden Rule violations and, therefore, the judge did not err in denying GMAC's motion for a mistrial. Danner, 173 So.2d at 613.
GMAC's remaining issues and sub-issues have been deemed devoid of merit; a published discussion of them is unnecessary.