What is the test for reversing a judgment against the state in a civil case?

In Kenworthy v. State of California (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 378, 396--401, 46 Cal.Rptr. 396, the court reversed a judgment against the state for, among other reasons, gross and continuous misconduct of plaintiff's attorney--even though Proper objections and admonishments had been made in almost every instance. The misconduct consisted of the following: (1) unfounded accusations of suppression of evidence by the state; (2) suggestions (not subsequently proved) of bribery of state officials; (3) self-serving statements in front of the jury; (4) improper attempts to introduce irrelevant evidence in the jury's presence; (5) gratuitous remarks made in front of the jury; and (6) arguments 'replete with insinuations, none of which had any support in the record.' After reviewing the foregoing misconduct the court stated: 'In our opinion, the design and purpose of plaintiffs were clear. There was a deliberate attempt to administer poison, no single dose of which was lethal but with an accumulative effect inevitable and realized.' (Id. at p. 398, 46 Cal.Rptr. at p. 409.) The court concluded, therefore, that even though the trial court had admonished the jury to disregard the improprieties of counsel, and had felt in denying the state's motion for a new trial that 'its admonitions had been an antidote sufficient to counteract the venom,' the grossly excessive verdict was proof to the contrary. (Id. at p. 401, 46 Cal.Rptr. at p. 411.)

In Balistreri v. Turner (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 236, 38 Cal.Rptr. 553, this court reversed a judgment in favor of the plaintiff (a union member in a conspiracy/assault and battery action against a union official). After first concluding that sufficient evidence had been introduced to support the conspiracy theory, the court went on to hold, however, that the conduct of plaintiff's attorney required a reversal. The misconduct consisted of asking numerous argumentative and insinuating questions

Page 52