Michelle M. Smith, Appellant v. Kartika Hopper, Appellee

Summary

The court affirmed the circuit court’s order granting Hopper a new trial after Smith’s counsel argued, without evidentiary support, that a key police witness had been reprimanded for his accident report. The court held that Hopper did not waive the issue because the circuit court itself identified the misconduct and gave a curative instruction, and it held that granting a new trial was not a manifest abuse of discretion given the prejudicial nature of the argument. Justice Baker, joined by Justices Danielson and Hart, dissented, arguing that Hopper waived the issue and received all relief requested through the curative instruction.