 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rollins v. Commonwealth1/31/2003
in the morning. Rollins and Meza both asserted, however, that Rollins never operated a motor vehicle that morning. Rather, Rollins testified that he either walked or relied on others for transportation throughout these events. The jury found Rollins guilty. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Rollins argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial because the introduction of outstanding warrants for his arrests made a fair trial impossible. We reject this argument.
A mistrial should be granted only where there exists a manifest necessity for such action, or an urgent or real necessity for this extreme measure. Gosser v. Commonwealth, Ky., 31 S.W.3d 897 (2000). The trial court retains broad discretion in determining when to declare a mistrial. Commonwealth v. Scott, Ky., 12 S.W.3d 682 (2000). Even with broad discretion to grant a motion for a mistrial, the trial court should do so only under urgent circumstances and for very plain and obvious reasons. Id. The standard for reviewing the denial of a mistrial is abuse of discretion. Bray v. Commonwealth, Ky., 68 S.W.3d 375, 383 (2002).
Our review of the record reveals that the improper testimony complained of by Rollins did not mandate a mistrial. Officer Sallee's inadvertent comment concerning the discovery of outstanding warrants for Rollins's arrest was not argued to the jury, nor was this evidence used to impeach Rollins during his testimony. Accordingly, this inadvertent testimony did not deprive Rollins of a fair trial. See Bills v. Commonwealth, Ky., 851 S.W.2d 466, 472 (1993). Further, Rollins did not request that the jury be admonished to disregard Officer Sallee's statement. As noted by the Kentucky Supreme Court in Graves v. Commonwealth, Ky., 17 S.W.3d 858, 865 (2000), evidentiary errors of this sort are "easily cured by an admonition to the jury to disregard the testimony." In light of these facts, coupled with Trooper Preston's testimony that he observed Rollins driving a vehicle on April 26, 2001, we cannot say that Officer Sallee's inadvertent comment so prejudiced Rollins that it resulted in manifest injustice. Thus, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying Rollins's motion for a mistrial.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
|