Opinion ID: 1963182
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Motion For A Mistrial

Text: The final contention of the appellants is that the trial court erred in refusing their request for a mistrial based on alleged improprieties in the closing argument of the plaintiffs to the jury. The claim is that counsel for plaintiffs made several improper, immaterial and prejudical arguments. The claim lacks merit. When counsel for plaintiffs said to the jury that the defendants could have had the plaintiff-passenger examined by any doctor they chose, the court promptly informed the jury that this was improper and instructed it to disregard the statement. Likewise, when reference was made to the fact that the plaintiff-husband (who did not testify) was going to have to enter the hospital in a few days, counsel for plaintiffs was again admonished by the court. The other claims of impropriety to the effect that it was wrong for counsel to estimate the money value of the case and to inform the jury that this was the passenger's one and only day in court, even if raised below, would not, without more, have warranted a mistrial. Whether or not the trial court should either declare a mistrial or advise the jury to disregard an improper argument is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court which will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse. Leach v. Metzger, 241 Md. 533, 217 A.2d 302 (1966); Yellow Cab Co. v. Bradin, 172 Md. 388, 191 Atl. 717 (1937). Clearly, there was here no abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed; appellants to pay the costs.