JOHN RINGELSTEIN v. NAPLES COURTYARD INN LLC (2023)

AFFIRMED.

I concur in the disposition of this appeal.¹ The only issue raised related to improper comments made during defense counsel's closing argument.² Many of these comments were subject to objections that were sustained. Counsel failed to preserve his objections for appeal with a corresponding request for a mistrial. Counsel did preserve two objections to impermissible “golden rule” arguments made to the jury.³ We do not, however, find that those arguments rose to the level of requiring a new trial.

That said, defense counsel's closing argument in this case could form the basis of a primer on improper argument. There are two explanations for the repeated improprieties: (1) they were intentional; or (2) they were the result of inexperience or a lack of continuing legal education on closing arguments. By the writing of this opinion, time will tell which is correct. If the former, trial courts are now on notice and should respond accordingly.

FOOTNOTES

1.   This case was transferred from the Second District Court of Appeal to this Court on January 1, 2023.

2.   Appellate counsel for Naples Courtyard was not trial counsel below.

3.   “[A] golden rule argument suggests to jurors that they put themselves in the shoes of one of the parties, and is impermissible because it encourages the jurors to decide the case on the basis of personal interest and bias rather than on the evidence.” Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Zapata, 601 So. 2d 239, 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

PER CURIAM.

NARDELLA and MIZE, JJ., concur. COHEN, J., concurs specially, with opinion.