CITY OF CHARLOTTE V KARL J FORELL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CITY OF CHARLOTTE,
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 187775
Eaton Circuit Court
LC No. 94-000162
KARL J. FORELL, JENNIFER L.
FORELL, ROSE LYNN SCHLUSSEL,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
ROBERT M. BOHLEN PROFIT SHARING
TRUST and FARM CREDIT SERVICES OF
MICHIGAN’S HEARTLAND, PCA,
Defendants.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and MacKenzie and A.P. Hathaway*, JJ.
MacKENZIE, J. (dissenting in part).
I agree with the majority that the trial court did not err in refusing to give defendants’ proposed
non-standard jury instruction. However, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion
holding that a new trial is required because the City attorney’s closing argument denied defendants a fair
trial.
An attorney’s comments usually will not be grounds for reversal unless they indicate a deliberate
course of conduct aimed at preventing a fair and impartial trial. Wilson v General Motors Corp, 183
Mich App 21, 26; 454 NW2d 405 (1990). Thus, in a personal injury action a corporate defendant is
denied a fair trial where the plaintiff’s summation “constantly stress[ed] the corporate nature, wealth,
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
power, and insensitivity” of the defendant, especially where this theme is constantly repeated throughout
the summation. Reetz v Kinsman Marine Transit Co, 416 Mich 97, 110-111; 330 NW2d 638
(1982). In a condemnation case, the government attorney denies the landowner of a fair trial if he
“exploit[s] his position as representative of the taxpayers, including the jurors, to the detriment of the
landowner.” Wayne Co Rd Comm’rs v GLS LeasCo, 394 Mich 126, 135; 229 NW2d 797 (1975).
On the other hand, this Court has refused to grant a new trial where the allegedly improper
comments were “brief and isolated,” King v Taylor Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc, 184 Mich App 204,
217; 457 NW2d 42 (1990), and where counsel’s behavior “did not compare with the egregious
conduct” of the attorneys in Reetz, supra and GLS LeasCo, supra. Isagholian v Transamerica Ins
Corp, 208 Mich App 9, 16; 527 NW2d 13 (1994).
In the present case, it was defense counsel who first used the term “bankruptcy,” and it was
obvious that the City attorney’s statement responded to counsel’s use of that term. Furthermore, the
allegedly improper comment was brief and isolated and does not compare with the egregious conduct of
the attorneys in Reetz and GLS LeasCo, supra. There was no need for the trial judge to strike the
comment because it was so brief and counsel did not “constantly stress” the issue of bankruptcy as
required by Reetz, supra.
Reversal on the basis of an attorney’s comments is required only where the statements reflect a
studied purpose to inflame or prejudice the jury or deflect the jury’s attention from the issues involved.
Hunt v Freeman, 217 Mich App 92, 95; 550 NW2d 817 (1996). In my opinion, the City attorney’s
statement fell short of requiring reversal under this standard. I would hold that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for new trial and, accordingly, would affirm.
/s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
