reversal solely on improper reference, in closing, to party's pecu-niaiy straits, and stating that "justice is to be accorded to rich and poor alike, and a deliberate attempt by counsel to appeal to social or economic prejudices of the jury, including the wealth or poverty of the litigants, is misconduct where the asserted wealth or poverty is not relevant to the issues of the case”
How later courts described this case
- reversal solely on improper reference, in closing, to party's pecu-niaiy straits, and stating that "justice is to be accorded to rich and poor alike, and a deliberate attempt by counsel to appeal to social or economic prejudices of the jury, including the wealth or poverty of the litigants, is misconduct where the asserted wealth or poverty is not relevant to the issues of the case”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Hart v. Wielt, 4 Cal. App. 3d 224 (1970)
We think Hoffman is distinguishable from the present case and that the admonition cured the error.
The opinion
McCOMB, J.
I dissent. I would affirm the judgment for the reasons expressed by Justice Taylor in the opinion prepared by him for the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two (Hoffman v. Brandt, 1 Civ. 22745, filed May 31, 1966, certified for nonpublication).
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied January 25, 1967.