 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Stanton6/17/2003
personally made comments. Each juror indicated they had neither heard nor made comments related to the case.
Defendant also directs our attention to an instance during which he was being cross-examined and was approached by the prosecutor with a knife that had been marked for identification. Defendant's attorney objected to the display of the knife as no foundation had been laid and it had not been introduced into evidence. Both parties were asked to approach the bench. As they approached, the prosecutor stated that the knife was provided in discovery "at the last trial," referencing the first trial on thismatter. The jury then left the courtroom. The prosecutor returned to his table and asked a detective seated there if he heard the comments, to which the detective stated he did not hear the prosecutor's comment, but did hear the trial court state, "Jesus help me." Upon defendant's motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor's reference to "the last trial," as well as the trial court's exclamation, the trial court heard arguments from both parties and took the matter under advisement. The trial court then brought the jury back in and asked if any of them heard any of the comments at the bench. The jurors all responded in the negative.
The trial court must declare a mistrial "if there occurs during the trial an error or legal defect in the proceedings, or conduct inside or outside the courtroom, resulting in substantial and irreparable prejudice to the defendant's case." N.C. Gen. Stat. ยง 15A-1061 (2001). The trial court enjoys broad discretion in determining whether to grant a motion for mistrial, "and a mistrial is appropriate only when there are such serious improprieties as would make it impossible to attain a fair and impartial verdict under the law." State v. Calloway, 305 N.C. 747, 754, 291 S.E.2d 622, 627 (1982). "The scope of appellate review, then, is limited to whether in denying the motions for a mistrial, there has been an abuse of judicial discretion." State v. Boyd, 321 N.C. 574, 579, 364 S.E.2d 118, 120 (1988). In other words, unless the trial court's ruling is so clearly erroneous that it amounted to a manifest abuse of discretion, it will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Newton, 82 N.C. App. 555, 559, 347 S.E.2d 81, 84 (1986), disc. review denied, 318 N.C. 699, 351 S.E.2d 756 (1987).
Based on a careful review of the transcript, we do not discern a reason for the declaration of a mistrial. We believe the trial court dealt appropriately with the jury in light of Mr. McDowell's statement regarding what he heard. We also believe the trial court conducted a proper inquiry into whether the jury heard the exchange involving the knife. Defendant also moved for a mistrial when Agent Oxendine testified about his statement because the statement was allegedly not provided during discovery. As previously discussed, we do not believe this warranted a mistrial. The trial court was in the best position to determine whether irregularities occurred and protected defendant's interests by issuing limiting instructions sua sponte and by sustaining defendant's objections on grounds he did not raise. We conclude the trial court dealt appropriately with each of defendant's motions for a mistrial and did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, defendant's final assignment of error is overruled.
After careful examination of the record, transcripts, and arguments of the parties, we conclude defendant received a fair trial free of reversible error.
No error.
Judges TYSON and CALABRIA concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
|