Court Opinion

ID: 9567285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:51:47.476681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:30.858290
License: Public Domain

Stolz, Judge,
dissenting. I concur with Divisions 1 and 2 of the majority opinion, but dissent as to Division 3.
"[T]he argument of counsel for the plaintiff went beyond the bounds of proper and legitimate argument, but in ruling on such matters the trial judge is vested with a broad discretion and his ruling will not be disturbed unless it appears that his discretion was manifestly abused.” McCluskey v. American Oil Co., 225 Ga. 63, 64 (165 SE2d 830) and cit. "In this type case, the available actions by the court- are the' granting of the following forms of relief: (1) an instruction or admonition *629to the jury to disregard the improper argument; or, if this is deemed inadequate to remove the harmful effect, (2) instruction or admonition of the jury plus a reprimand or rebuke of offending counsel; or, as a last resort, (3) mistrial.” (Emphasis supplied.) Seaboard C. L. R. Co. v. Wallace, 227 Ga. 363, 365 (180 SE2d 743).
When counsel made the improper remark, the judge immediately sent the jury to the jury room and reprimanded counsel. It must be noted that Code § 81-1009 does not provide that the rebuke must be made in the presence of the jury. Further, in Spell v. State, 225 Ga. 705, 709 (171 SE2d 285), the Supreme Court, in passing on a similar situation, held: "Conceding, but not deciding, that the remarks of the solicitor general in the present case were improper, we are of the opinion that the court’s instruction to the jury amounted in effect to a rebuke of the solicitor general and was sufficient to eliminate such remarks from the consideration of the jury.” See also Wells v. State, 194 Ga. 70, 75 (20 SE2d 580). Spell was a murder case. This is a civil case for money damages. In Spell, Justice Felton in his dissent urged that rebuke of counsel is a separate requirement of Code § 81-1009. This position was rejected by the other six justices of the Supreme Court and we are bound by their decision.
Reversing the trial judges for exercising their discretion in conducting their trials, where the slightest slip of the tongue or variation from the norm is involved, only serves to increase the cost of litigation, tie up the courts, and unduly delay the administration of justice.
The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for mistrial.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judges Hall and Eberhardt concur in this dissent.