 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Griffin v. State1/21/2003
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 01/21/2003
. Bobby Earl Griffin was convicted in Panola County Circuit Court of driving under the influence in a negligent manner and thereby causing the death of another person. He appeals that conviction raising only one issue. Griffin asserts that the prosecuting attorney, during cross-examination, violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by attempting to put before the jury the fact that Griffin had refused to discuss the incident with investigating officers shortly after the accident. Griffin contends that this line of inquiry was so prejudicial to a fair trial that the circuit court erred in denying his mistrial motion. We disagree and affirm the conviction and judgment of sentence.
I. Facts
. Griffin was involved in a car accident in Panola County that resulted in the death of Becky Melton. Evidence at trial showed that Griffin's blood alcohol content at the time of the accident was .25%, which was well beyond the legal limit to operate a motor vehicle.
. Griffin elected to testify in his own defense at trial. The essence of his testimony was that all of the State's evidence was false, that he could not possibly have had such a high blood alcohol content on the day of the accident, and that the accident actually occurred when Melton crossed over into his lane of travel.
. During cross-examination of Griffin, the prosecutor asked, "Well, before today, have you ever been given a chance to tell your side of this story?" Griffin's attorney promptly objected. After some discussion outside the jury's presence regarding the State's objective in asking that question, the trial court sustained the objection. Griffin's subsequent motion for a mistrial, however, was denied. The court offered the view that, because the inquiry was promptly objected to and went unanswered, it did not appear that any irreversible prejudice to the defendant's right to a fundamentally fair trial had occurred. Instead of granting a mistrial, the trial court promptly admonished the jury that the question itself was improper and that jurors should disregard it in their deliberations. Later, in its general instructions, the court also instructed the jury that it "should not speculate as to possible answers to questions the Court did not require to be answered; further, you should not draw any inference from the content of those questions."
. It is not entirely clear what purpose the prosecution intended to accomplish by the inquiry. Outside the jury's presence, the State's attorney seemed to indicate that he was not seeking to let the jury know about Griffin's earlier refusal to give a statement to investigating officers, but was instead attempting to lay a predicate to attack Griffin's eleventh-hour list of potential defense witnesses. Nevertheless, the trial court interpreted the question as having at least the potential to raise Griffin's earlier decision to remain silent in the face of questioning by police and treated the matter in that light. Whether eliciting this information was the intended purpose or merely an unintended consequence of the inquiry, it is conceivable that Griffin could have understood the question in that light and responded accordingly. We will consider the issue, therefore, on the assumption that the question was objectionable for the reasons contended by Griffin in this appeal.
. We have little trouble in resolving this issue against Griffin. The decision to grant a motion for a mistrial is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the trial court. Blocker v. State, 809 So. 2d 640 ( 11) (Miss. 2002). In King v. State, t
Page 1 2 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|