 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Griffin v. State1/21/2003
he supreme court held that "when an isolated prejudicial question or comment by the prosecution is promptly objected to and the objection is sustained, and particularly when the circuit judge instructs the jury to disregard the incident, there is a presumption the action on the part of the trial court cured the error." King v. State, 580 So. 2d 1182, 1189 (Miss. 1991). In the case before us, the improper question was met with an immediate objection. There was no preliminary line of inquiry leading up to the question that would have given unwarranted emphasis to the question itself nor led the jury to be overly concerned about what Griffin's answer might have been had he been allowed to answer. The trial court immediately cautioned the jury that, " here's nothing wrong with that [failing to give a statement to investigating officers]. The man has a right to do that. Just disregard the question and my explanation because it doesn't have anything to do with his innocence or guilt." Also, as we have already observed, the court further instructed the jury not to speculate about potential responses to unanswered questions. There is a presumption that the jury follows the instructions given it by the trial court. Crenshaw v. State, 520 So.2d 131, 134 (Miss.1988). We find no reason to think the jurors would have any incentive to do otherwise in this instance.
. In summary, we find nothing remarkable or unduly prejudicial in the question itself to suggest that the prospect of a fundamentally fair trial was destroyed by the mere act of framing the question in the jury's presence. Rather, we conclude that the rule announced in King v. State properly dictates the answer in this case, and that there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal to grant a mistrial.
. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PANOLA COUNTY OF CONVICTION OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE IN A NEGLIGENT MANNER CAUSING DEATH AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY-TWO YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WITH ELEVEN YEARS SUSPENDED IS AFFIRMED. THE COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO PANOLA COUNTY.
KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS, AND CHANDLER, JJ., CONCUR. GRIFFIS, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
|