Summary
The Supreme Court of Georgia held that a party must make a contemporaneous objection when opposing counsel allegedly violates a ruled-upon motion in limine during opening statements or closing argument in order to preserve the issue for appeal. The court also held that unpreserved claims of improper closing argument are not subject to appellate review in civil cases, overruling contrary precedent. The court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment in favor of Williams.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a party must make a contemporaneous objection to preserve for appellate review an alleged violation of a granted motion in limine during opening statement or closing argument.
- Whether Georgia permits appellate review in a civil case of an unpreserved claim that closing argument was improper.
- Whether the defendants' generalized motion in limine was sufficiently specific and definite to establish a violation based on Williams's closing argument.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the judgment based on the alleged motion-in-limine violation.
Holdings
- A contemporaneous objection must be made when an alleged violation of a ruled-upon motion in limine occurs during evidence, opening statement, or closing argument in order to preserve the issue for appeal.
- Georgia appellate courts may not review an unpreserved claim of error based on improper closing argument in a civil case; the Court overruled Stolte v. Fagan, Mullins v. Thompson, Moxley v. Moxley, and related cases to the contrary.
- The defendants' motion in limine was so vague and overly broad that it was virtually meaningless as a vehicle for deciding the issue before trial, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Williams's closing argument did not violate the ruling.
Key quotations
“We conclude that a contemporaneous objection must be made at the time an alleged violation of a ruled-upon motion in limine occurs at trial – whether during the presentation of evidence or in opening statements or arguments made by counsel before the factfinder – in order to preserve the error for appeal.” (16-17)
“We hold that there is no reason to review unpreserved claims of error in closing argument in civil cases and therefore overrule Stolte and other cases holding that such appellate review is available.” (20-21)
“With these principles in mind, we conclude that the motion in limine at issue on certiorari – seeking to exclude “any statements, arguments, or evidence offered predominantly to overly inflame the emotions of the jury or to illicit excessive or undue sympathy, hostility, or prejudice for or against either party” – was so vague and overly broad as to render it virtually meaningless as a vehicle to decide an issue before it was raised in context at trial.” (29-30)
Factual background
Harvey, driving a dump truck for Oxford Construction Company, struck the rear of Williams's tractor, causing Williams severe injuries, including traumatic brain injury, fractures, seizures, dementia, impaired mobility, and a need for continuous care. Oxford conceded liability, leaving damages for the jury, which awarded $18 million after hearing competing estimates concerning medical expenses, lost earnings, future care, and pain and suffering. During closing argument, Williams's counsel compared the residential memory-care option in the life-care plan to a "death warrant," and the defendants did not contemporaneously object.
Procedural history
Williams sued Rubin Harvey and Oxford Construction Company after Harvey's dump truck collided with Williams's tractor. Oxford conceded liability, and a jury awarded Williams $18 million; after an insurance offset, the trial court entered judgment for $12,567,896.16 and awarded prejudgment interest. The trial court denied the defendants' motion for new trial. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that Williams's closing argument violated the motion in limine and that the issue was preserved without a contemporaneous objection. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed the Court of Appeals, and held that the argument did not violate the motion in limine in any event.
Remand instructions
The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed. No further remand instruction is stated in the opinion.