Ricks v. Loyola

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida quashed the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision in a medical malpractice case involving defense counsel's “empty chair” comments about absent parties. The court held that the trial court had broad discretion to reserve ruling on the plaintiff's motion for mistrial until after the jury returned a verdict and acted within its discretion in granting a new trial based on the potentially prejudicial comments. A dissent argued that conflict jurisdiction was improper and that delaying the ruling did not serve judicial economy.

Holdings

1. A trial court has broad discretion to reserve ruling on a motion for mistrial until after the jury deliberates, including when the motion is made before testimony begins, so long as the discretion is exercised consistently with judicial economy.
2. A comment emphasizing that former parties were absent from the courtroom and implying that the plaintiff was responsible for explaining their absence may improperly suggest a settlement or dismissal and may prejudice the jury, even if counsel does not use the word settlement.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by reserving ruling on the mistrial motion and subsequently granting a new trial based on the objectionable comment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a trial court may exercise its discretion to reserve ruling on a motion for mistrial until after the jury returns a verdict, even when the motion is made during opening statements before evidence is presented.
2. Whether defense counsel's reference to absent former defendants and the plaintiff's supposed responsibility to explain their absence could constitute an improper reference to a settlement or dismissal prohibited from being disclosed to the jury under section 768.041(3), Florida Statutes.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting a new trial based on the allegedly prejudicial opening-statement comment.

Disposition

quashed