Court Opinion

ID: 9827219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:17:57.808196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:26.793888
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant K. S. Richards has filed a motion for rehearing in this case and urgently insists that our conclusions expressed in the original opinion, contrary to his contentions, are all wrong. We stated in the opinion substantially that the picture of the suit drawn by us was inadequate, but in the interest of brevity we refrained from saying many things which perhaps should have been said.
However, at the conclusion of the third paragraph from the bottom of the opinion we used this language: “Ordinarily reversal will not be granted for improper argument unless the argument of opposing counsel is before the court.” We cited cases from the United States Supreme Court so holding. The rule announced appears to be correct in Federal procedure, but we think it not applicable to our state practice; we therefore withdraw from the opinion the quoted statement, and leave stand other reasons assigned for overruling the assigned error. We know of no decided case in this state which goes as far as the rule announced by us. It is easy to perceive the harmful statements that could be indulged by counsel in a closing argument when he knows opposing counsel’s argument has not been taken down and cannot be brought before the appellate court.
We believe we should call attention to what was said in the opinion about the duty of trial courts to curb the propensities of zealous counsel during the trial. No reflection upon the trial court .in this case was intended by us, but what was said is more complimentary than critical. The record in this case shows that while appel-lee’s counsel was making his argument, counsel for appellant made many objections and the former complained to the court about the frequent interruptions. The court appears to have stopped the pror ceedings and called counsel of both parties to bar, and after a short conference, the nature of which was not reported, the court said: “All right, now let’s start all over.” So far as is disclosed by the record, none of the things complained of on appeal took place thereafter. The foregoing observation is not prompted by what either party litigant has said in the motion for rehearing nor in reply, but we believe that in fairness to the trial court it should be said.
We have carefully reviewed appellant’s motion and believing we have properly disposed of this appeal, it is overruled.