Opening statements are meant to help jurors understand the viewpoints and claims of the parties. See M Civ JI 2.02.
“Unless the parties and the court agree otherwise, the plaintiff . . . , before presenting evidence, must make a full and fair statement of the case and the facts the plaintiff . . . intends to prove. Immediately thereafter, or immediately before presenting evidence, the defendant may make a similar statement.” MCR 2.513(C). See also MCR 2.507(A). Parties have the right to present opening statements. See MCR 2.513(C); MCR 2.507(A). However, the parties and the court may agree otherwise. See MCR 2.513(C).
The court may impose reasonable time limits on opening statements. MCR 2.513(C). See also MCR 2.507(F). However, the court “must give adequate time for argument, taking into consideration the complexity of the action.” Warden v Fenton Lanes, Inc, 197 Mich App 618, 625 (1992). The trial court’s decision to limit the time allotted for statements or arguments is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id.
Opening statements must be limited to the issues that are supported by the evidence. Wiley v Henry Ford Cottage Hosp, 257 Mich App 488, 503 (2003). However, where the statements made are not supported by the evidence, reversal is not required unless the reviewing court finds that the aggrieved party was prejudiced by the statements. Id. at 503-504.
The trial court has discretion to determine what constitutes a fair and proper opening statement. Hunt v Freeman, 217 Mich App 92, 97 (1996).“The trial court is given very wide discretion in ruling upon the content and presentation of opening statements.” Haynes v Monroe Plumbing & Heating Co, 48 Mich App 707, 712 (1973). It is within the trial court’s discretion to allow counsel to use visual aids during opening statements. Id. at 714.
A.Prejudicial or Inflammatory Remarks
It is reversible error to present arguments that contain irrelevant issues not before the court and that are designed to “appeal[] to the jury’s bias and prejudice.” Kakligian v Henry Ford Hosp, 48 Mich App 325, 328-329 (1973). In Kakligian (a medical malpractice action), the defendants’ attorney repeatedly stated that the plaintiff brought suit solely out of vengeance and the jury found for the defendants. Id. at 327-328. Because the statements were aimed at arousing the jury’s bias and prejudice, and the trial court did not give a timely curative instruction, the Kakligian Court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to a new trial. Id. at 329.
A motion for directed verdict may be based upon the insufficiencies of the opposing party’s opening statement. Jones v Hicks, 358 Mich 474, 485 (1960). See Section 7.32(C) for additional information on motions for directed verdict following opening statement.
Similarly, a defendant may be entitled to a mistrial where he or she demonstrates that the plaintiff made inaccurate statements during the opening statement, which prejudiced the defendant. See Schutte v Celotex Corp, 196 Mich App 135, 142 (1992). See Section 7.10 for additional information on mistrial.