In an unpub'd decision here today, 2/6 gives some good lessons about preserving the record. The decision has a surfeit of forfeiture, including the follow:
Appellant argues that the trial court erroneously refused to permit the jury to watch a video of a crash test .... The video issue is forfeited because the video and still photographs were not marked as exhibits and are not part of the record on appeal. The record, therefore, is inadequate for meaningful review of the trial court’s order refusing to permit the jury to watch the video.
Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury as follows pursuant to CACI No. 3928: .... Appellant’s contention is forfeited because the record does not include the instructions given to the jury.
Appellant claims that, during closing argument, respondents’ counsel committed misconduct by misstating the law of damages. Respondent’s counsel said, “If this accident was the straw that broke the camel’s back, then you should only award damages for this one straw, not for the thousands of straws that occurred before this accident.” Appellant objected and moved to “strike” counsel’s “comments.” The court replied, “Stricken.” Appellant did not request that the court admonish the jury to disregard counsel’s comments. In the absence of such a request, the misconduct claim is forfeited. “Generally a claim of misconduct is entitled to no consideration on appeal unless the record shows a timely and proper objection and a request that the jury be admonished. [Citations.] . . . ‘It is only in extreme cases that the court, when acting promptly and speaking clearly and directly on the subject, cannot, by instructing the jury to disregard such matters, correct the impropriety of the act of counsel and remove any effect his conduct or remarks would otherwise have.’ [Citation.]” (Horn v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 602, 610.)
Posts
