Section 13.8 Scope of Arguments

• Library: Civil Trial Practice 2015 Supp

F. (§13.8) Scope of Arguments

While it is often held that the field of argument is broad—

· Robbins v. Brown-Strauss Corp., 257 S.W.2d 643 (Mo. 1953);

· Collins v. Cowger, 283 S.W.2d 554 (Mo. 1955);

· Hoehn v. Hampton, 483 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. App. E.D. 1972);

· Hagedorn v. Adams, 854 S.W.2d 470 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993)

—and that the trial court has considerable discretion in permitting or restricting argument—

· Goldstein v. Fendelman, 336 S.W.2d 661 (Mo. 1960);

· Jensen v. Walker, 496 S.W.2d 317 (Mo. App. S.D. 1973);

· Andrews v. Terminal R.R. Ass’n of St. Louis, 716 S.W.2d 344 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986);

· Wolfe v. Cent. Mine Equip. Co., 895 S.W.2d 83 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995);

· Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hosp., 863 S.W.2d 852 (Mo. banc 1993);

· Wigley v. Capital Bank of Southwest Mo., 887 S.W.2d 715 (Mo. App. S.D. 1994);

· Robertson v. Cameron Mut. Ins. Co., 855 S.W.2d 442 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993);

· Hagedorn, 854 S.W.2d 470

—it is also universally held that the arguments of counsel must be based on the record and should not go beyond the record or argue inferences from the evidence that are not justified from it. See:

· Robinson v. Empiregas Inc. of Hartville, 906 S.W.2d 829 (Mo. App. S.D. 1995);

· Davis v. City of Independence, 404 S.W.2d 718 (Mo. banc 1966);

· Robbins, 257 S.W.2d 643;

· Collins,283 S.W.2d 554;

· S. G. Payne & Co. v. Nowak, 465 S.W.2d 17 (Mo. App. E.D. 1971);

· McCandless v. Manzella, 369 S.W.2d 188 (Mo. 1963);

· Zoeller v. Terminal R.R. Ass’n of St. Louis, 407 S.W.2d 73 (Mo. App. E.D. 1966);

· Wartenbe v. Car-Anth Mfg. & Supply Co., 362 S.W.2d 54 (Mo. App. E.D. 1962);

· Mercantile Trust Co., N.A. v. Harper, 622 S.W.2d 345 (Mo. App. E.D. 1981) (party should not argue areas that have not been pleaded);

· Carter v. Willert Home Prods., Inc., 714 S.W.2d 506 (Mo. banc 1986), abrogated on other grounds, Nazeri v. Mo. Valley Coll., 860 S.W.2d 303 (Mo. banc 1993);

· Hammer v. Waterhouse, 895 S.W.2d 95 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995).

Counsel is given wide latitude in suggesting inferences from the evidence even if such inferences drawn are illogical. Nelson v. Waxman, 9 S.W.3d 601, 606 (Mo. banc 2000). But, while arguments that go beyond the record or argue inferences that are not justified should not be permitted, it does not necessarily follow that the argument of matter or issues outside the record will justify the granting of a new trial. Hartley v. Steiman, 408 S.W.2d 81 (Mo. 1966); Bair v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 647 S.W.2d 507 (Mo. banc 1983).

In...