 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Johnson3/23/2004
mistrial is unnecessary where a cautionary instruction is adequate to overcome any possible prejudice. Commonwealth v. Fetter, 770 A.2d 762, 768 (Pa. Super. 2001), aff'd, 570 Pa. 494, 810 A.2d 637 (2002).
18 Upon review of the record, including the brief nature of the reference, the court's prompt instruction and our standard of review, we find no error in the denial of a mistrial. The curative instruction set out above was sufficient to overcome any potential for prejudice. Fetter, supra. Appellant's demand for a new trial is without merit.
19 Finally, Appellant claims that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court permitted the Commonwealth to introduce a statement that Appellant made to the investigating officers that he had been consuming alcohol on the day of the accident. Appellant claims that the statement was overly prejudicial and should have been precluded.
20 Trial judges are afforded broad latitude and discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence. We will not disturb their determinations absent a finding of abuse of that discretion. Commonwealth v. Roefaro, 691 A.2d 472, 474 (Pa. Super. 1997).
21 Prior to trial appellant requested that the Commonwealth be precluded from introducing his statement to police that he had consumed alcohol on the evening of the accident. In that statement, appellant admitted to police that he was driving on Fells Church Road on the night of the accident; however, he insisted that he did not strike the victim with his car. In explaining his activities on that date, appellant told police that he was at a bar earlier that day and had consumed beer while there.
22 The court denied the motion on the basis that Appellant's statement was probative of his state of mind and his ability to recall specific facts about the incident. We find no error in the court's decision. Appellant admitted to being in the area of the accident at the time it occurred; but denied any involvement. His version of events contradicted that offered by the Commonwealth. The fact that appellant consumed alcohol in the hours prior to the accident certainly was probative of whether his recollection of events, i.e., that he did not strike the victim, was accurate. The trial court's ruling on the motion was not an abuse of discretion.
23 Because appellant has raised no issues of merit, we are compelled to affirm.
24 Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|