Date: June 4th, 2025 5:36 PM
Author: Abnormal death wish
insurance defense counsel didn't even object and thus waived appeal on such grounds
"Starbucks argues that Mr. Rowley’s final argument inflamed the jury with
improper argument it speculates led to this verdict. However, Starbucks did not
object to any of the alleged arguments that were purportedly improper. “[W]here
misconduct of an attorney is relied on in a motion for new trial, it must be shown
that objection was made as soon as the misconduct became known.” (People v.
Rosson (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 480, 491.) The court, therefore, did not have an
opportunity to interject a ruling and admonition. If there had been an improper
argument, then Starbucks waived the right to a new trial for any attorney
misconduct by failing to object during the trial to the misconduct of which the
defense was aware, and by not requesting a jury admonition or a mistrial.
Fernandez v. Jimenez (2019) 40 Cal. App. 5 th 482, 492. A party may not wait to
see whether the jury renders a verdict in the party’s favor and, if the jury does not
10
do so, then file a motion for a new trial based upon misconduct. Garcia v.
ConMed Corp (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4 th 144, 148.
“Because the effect of misconduct can ordinarily be removed by an
instruction to the jury to disregard it, it is generally essential . . . that it be called to
the attention of the trial court at the time, to give the court an opportunity to so
act, if possible, as to correct the error and avoid a mistrial.” (Dominguez v.
Pantalone (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 201, 211–212.) None of the misconduct
claimed by Mr. Rowley could not have been cured by an appropriate admonition
by the court. Certainly, had any objection been made to the claimed misconduct,
then there would have been a pause in the argument to allow the court to
formulate and interject an admonition. Since Starbucks did not object Starbucks
cannot now complain that the improper argument somehow inflamed the jury
verdict. It should be noted that Mr. Rowley did not invite the jury to award punitive
damages, but rather clearly argued only for compensatory damages and advised
the jury that punitive damages were not appropriate. (RT 1186.)"
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733386&forum_id=2#48987131)