Murrell v. Lynch

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Murrell v. Lynch

163 So. 2d 525, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4208

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 28, 1964·No. No. 63-614·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial judge granted a new trial in a paternity suit. This appeal is brought pursuant to § 59.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The grounds assigned for the granting of the motion for new trial are (1) improper comments of defendant’s counsel in closing argument; (2) the trial of the cause went off on two related tangents which resulted in over-emphasis on these points to such a degree that there was not a fair consideration of the material issue; (3) the jury was confused by the conduct of an experiment; (4) that these errors resulted in the miscarriage of justice.

The order is affirmed under the rules stated in Cloud v. Fallís, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669; Simpson v. Clay, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 494.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The trial judge granted a new trial in a paternity suit. This appeal is brought pursuant to § 59.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The grounds assigned for the granting of the motion for new trial are (1) improper comments of defendant’s counsel in closing argument; (2) the trial of the cause went off on two related tangents which resulted in over-emphasis on these points to such a degree that there was not a fair consideration of the material issue; (3) the jury was confused by the conduct of an experiment; (4) that these errors resulted in the miscarriage of justice.

The order is affirmed under the rules stated in Cloud v. Fallís, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669; Simpson v. Clay, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 494.

Affirmed.

Murrell v. Lynch, 163 So. 2d 525, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4208 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

163 So. 2d 525 (Murrell v. Lynch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related