Opinion ID: 901080
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statements of Roth's counsel in closing argument

Text: [¶ 36.] Farner contends that Roth's counsel made statements in closing argument that were unsupported by the evidence and intended to inflame and prejudice the jury. As a result, Farner contends a new trial is warranted. [¶ 37.] We recognize that counsel are allowed wide latitude in argument and that a court should not too narrowly limit the manner and form of presentation and the inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, so long as unfair means are not employed to prejudice the jury. Binegar v. Day, 80 S.D. 141, 151, 120 N.W.2d 521, 527 (1963). Furthermore, A plaintiff should not be penalized for the misstatements of his counsel and the granting of a new trial should not be used to discipline counsel. An appellate court should interfere only when from an examination of the entire record, it is convinced that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Id. [¶ 38.] During closing argument, Roth's attorney did make the statement, I was admonished not to tell you that it's not illegal to tape record conversations and so I'm not going to tell you that after the trial court had earlier sustained an objection to a similar remark and struck a portion of the earlier statement from the record. However, this second statement was made in rebuttal, after counsel for Farner had made a statement to the effect, he puts in his pocket a tape recorder and secretly records the final conversation ... and he then wants to have you return a verdict in his favor on invasion of privacy. [¶ 39.] Furthermore, while it is true that counsel for Roth characterized Farner's conduct as evil and its employees as a pack of jackals, counsel for Farner did not object to these statements at trial. We have previously held that such objections not properly raised at trial cannot be reviewed by this Court on appeal. Anderson v. Johnson, 441 N.W.2d 675, 677 (S.D.1989). [¶ 40.] Finally, Roth's counsel made a comment in closing argument regarding defense counsel and the alleged scattering of the copies of the Pochop package throughout Roth's personnel file, to the effect their own lawyers are in on that cover-up, and they are the ones that produced those documents to us. The record indicates that the defense objected at the time of trial, and the trial court advised the jury to use their own recollection of what the evidence is. It is a well-settled premise of our system that a jury will use their reason in weighing the evidence and follow the instructions of the trial court. See State v. Holzer, 2000 SD 75, ¶ 20, 611 N.W.2d 647, 654. [¶ 41.] Based on a review of the entire record, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Farner's motion for a new trial. [T]he trial court had the benefit of hearing the same evidence as did the jury, and of observing the jury itself for indications that passion or prejudice may have influenced their verdict. Stormo, 469 N.W.2d at 826 (citations omitted).