Opinion ID: 2118645
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Improper Argument of Counsel.

Text: In his argument to the jury, plaintiff's counsel stated that Mertens did not have any money with which to pay his bills. Counsel followed this statement with the comment: Poverty is not a disgrace in this country. Prompt objection by appellants' counsel was sustained, and the trial court instructed the jury to disregard these statements. These remarks constituted improper argument by plaintiff's counsel. Stressing the financial worth of one of the parties in argument to the jury is an appeal to passion and prejudice and is not to be condoned. However, under the facts of the instant case we accept the determination of the  learned trial judge, on motions after verdict, that the error committed was not so prejudicial as to require a new trial. This is because it had been brought out in the testimony that Mertens was without funds to pay the funeral bill and the $15 per week to his daughter-in-law. From this testimony the jury could well have inferred that Mertens was a poor man. Thus, plaintiff's improper argument injected nothing new. In such a situation, we deem the trial court's instruction to the jury to disregard the improper argument may well have cured the error. By the Court. Judgment affirmed.