Robert Carey Contractor v. Casamento CA2/6
Mary Casamento and Ian Campbell appeal from judgments entered against them after a jury trial. They claim that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion for a new trial. The motion was based on opposing counsel’s misconduct in displaying to the jury evidence that the court had previously excluded. Because there is neither a reporter’s transcript nor an agreed or settled statement setting forth the relevant trial court proceedings, appellants cannot carry their burden of affirmatively showing error. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) We affirm.
Comments on Robert Carey Contractor v. Casamento CA2/6