Opinion ID: 2673196
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: NDOR’s Closing Argument

Text: During closing argument, counsel for NDOR discussed the parties’ different interpretations regarding the highest and best use of the property prior to the taking. Counsel then stated that the Hikes had “totally and completely failed to carry [their] burden in [their] argument to you that this property was — is commercial at all, let alone, in the immediate future.” Counsel continued, “I don’t want to — rarely do I get worked up in a 30 Borley Storage & Transfer Co. v. Whitted, supra note 29; Pribil v. Koinzan, 266 Neb. 222, 665 N.W.2d 567 (2003). Nebraska Advance Sheets 80 288 NEBRASKA REPORTS condemnation case. But, I’ve got to tell you, a million dollars? We’re the Nebraska Department of Roads; we’re not the Nebraska State Lottery.” The Hikes immediately objected and moved for a mistrial. The court ordered the statement stricken, implicitly denying the motion for mistrial. On appeal, the Hikes argue the reference to the state lottery was so inflammatory that a mistrial was warranted. They argue that the statement caused the jury to think about not just what the damages should be, but who was going to pay them. They contend a mistrial was warranted because there was no way to “‘unring a bell.’”31 [13-15] A mistrial is appropriate when an event occurs during the course of a trial which is of such a nature that its damaging effects would prevent a fair trial.32 Generally, a mistrial is only warranted where unfairness has been injected into a jury trial and so permeates the proceedings that no amount of admonition to the jury can remove the unfairness to a party.33 A trial court has considerable discretion in determining when an event occurring during a trial can be rectified by a cautionary instruction or is so prejudicial as to warrant a mistrial.34 We agree with the Hikes and the district court that the hyperbolic statement was improper. But it was an isolated event which hardly permeated the proceedings so as to prevent a fair verdict. The district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury to disregard the statement and overruling the motion for mistrial.