Bocher V. Glass

Appellants, Diane Bocher and Stephanie McMurray, appeal a $3 million jury award to appellees, Jeffrey and Ellen Glass, personal representatives of the estate of their deceased son, Jeffrey Glass, Jr. Appellants claim that the trial court erred in denying several motions for mistrial and a motion for a new trial based upon improper, and objected to, comments by the plaintiffs' attorney throughout the course of the trial below. Our review of the record shows that the plaintiffs' attorney conducted himself in a manner designed to inflame the emotions of the jury rather than prompt a "logical analysis of the evidence in light of the applicable law." See Murphy v. Int'l Robotic Systems, 766 So. 2d 1010, 1028 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Bertolotti v. State, 476 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1985)). Although counsel's improper comments would not necessarily require reversal if considered in isolation, we find the cumulative effect of the comments sufficient to have deprived appellants of a fair trial. See Muhammad v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., 668 So. 2d 254, 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding that the "collective import of counsel's personal injections, and irrelevant and inflammatory remarks, was so extensive as to have prejudicially pervaded the entire trial"); see also F.J.W. Enterprises, Inc. v. Johnson, 746 So. 2d 1145, 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Walt Disney World Co. v. Blalock, 640 So. 2d 1156, 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial. We find no reversible error in appellant's other point on appeal concerning admissibility of certain evidence proffered by the defense at trial.