Opinion ID: 2362237
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Propriety of Defense Counsel's Remarks

Text: Counsel may not argue by implication what counsel may not argue directly. Applying this principle to the present case, defense counsel's characterization of the accident as a fender-bender was improper. By playing down the seriousness of the accident, Maute's counsel unmistakably suggested  without support in expert testimony  that the accident could not have caused serious personal injury to Davis. [6] Upon Davis' pre-trial motion in limine to prohibit such improper arguments or characterizations, the trial court was required to issue a definitive ruling that marked out clear boundaries for counsels' opening statements and closing arguments. Similarly, when faced with a violation of this ruling at trial, the court was required to strike the offending comments from the record and to instruct the jury that there is no relationship between the magnitude of the damage to Davis' car and the extent of Davis' personal injuries attributable to the accident. [7] The trial court's decision to deny a requested remedy for an improper argument by counsel will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. [8] Under the facts of this case, the court's failure to provide a cautionary instruction after defense counsel's repeated characterization of the accident as a fender-bender constituted an abuse of discretion.