Court Opinion

ID: 9586185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:08:06.082853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:06.695276
License: Public Domain

Judge Walker
concurring.
My research indicates that the majority of cases to reach our appellate courts regarding arguments of counsel which referred to the veracity of witnesses were criminal cases. In most of these cases, our courts have held that counsel’s arguments regarding a witness lying was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial. I would decline to impose a standard more restrictive in civil cases than in criminal cases. While I express my concern that counsel’s argument may have violated our Rules of Professional Conduct, our Supreme Court has stated that ethical transgressions by counsel do not always constitute “legal error” and “legal error” does not entitle a defendant to a new trial unless it is prejudicial. State v. Sanders, 303 N.C. 608, *105281 S.E.2d 7, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 973, 70 L. Ed. 2d 392 (1981). I agree the trial judge did not commit prejudicial error in overruling defendant’s lone objection and in not intervening ex mero motu in the remainder of the argument.