Opinion ID: 1733568
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the argument must be harmful

Text: Should a complaining party establish that the unobjected-to argument being challenged is improper, the party must then also establish that the argument being challenged is harmful. [22] See, e.g., § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (1999); Weise v. Repa Film Int'l, Inc., 683 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (declining to grant new trial based on allegedly improper closing argument where complaining party failed to establish that such argument was harmful). In imposing this harmfulness requirement, we recognize that there is a temptation for both trial courts and appellate courts to use the remedy of new trial as a tool to punish misconduct of an attorney. Hagan, 666 So.2d at 584. However, closing argument that is violative of rule 4-3.4 does not necessarily constitute harmful error. See, e.g., Winterberg v. Johnson, 692 So.2d 254, 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Although courts have a supervisory role in overseeing the conduct of attorneys, the primary concern of courts must be how the improper closing argument affected the fairness of the trial proceedings. Thus, we agree with the Fifth District's statement in Fravel that, in many cases, [w]hen argument descends to the level of ethical violations, there are other ways to address the transgression than reversal of a jury verdict. 727 So.2d at 1036; cf. United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 506, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983) (finding that court should not exercise supervisory power to reverse jury verdict based on improper closing argument where such argument is harmless and where means more narrowly tailored to deter objectionable prosecutorial conduct are available). We in no way condone improper comments but conclude the litigation process is intended to resolve the pending dispute, not provide a mechanism to deal with wayward lawyers. Harmfulness in this context also carries a requirement that the comments be so highly prejudicial and of such collective impact as to gravely impair a fair consideration and determination of the case by the jury. Passing remarks of little consequence in the scope of a lengthy trial should find little sympathy if no contemporaneous objection is voiced. The extensiveness of the objectionable material is a factor to be considered in the harmfulness analysis. In sum, the improper closing argument comments must be of such a nature that it reaches into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that the verdict reached could not have been obtained but for such comments.