 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v Blacksmith10/8/2001
ithin its discretion to deny the motion for a mistrial because the testimony about the outstanding warrant was not egregious and, in any event, it was effectively offset by the court's instructions. We agree.
The entry of a mistrial is appropriate when the trial cannot continue for some reason, or if the trial does continue, a miscarriage of justice will occur. State v. McPherson, 882 S.W.2d 365, 370 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). "A mistrial is usually appropriate in a criminal case only where there is a `manifest necessity.'" State v. Seay, 945 S.W.2d 755, 764 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). The burden of showing manifest necessity rests upon the defendant. Id. The decision to grant a mistrial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and this court will not disturb the trial court's determination unless a clear abuse of discretion appears on the record. McPherson, 822 S.W.2d at 370.
Even though the testimony about the warrant was inadmissible evidence pursuant to Rule 404, the only information communicated to the jury was the existence of a warrant. The trial court took pains to minimize the significance of the warrant. The trial judge cogently emphasized to the jury, not only that the existence of a warrant was irrelevant to the case on trial, but also that the warrant represented an insignificant matter. Even though the trial judge did not specifically instruct the jury as to the dangers of propensity evidence, we think he effectively abated any prejudice to the defendant that resulted from Officer Alexander's statement.
"It is presumed that the jury followed the trial judge's instructions not to consider inadmissible evidence." State v. Millbrooks, 819 S.W.2d 441, 443 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (affirming the denial of a mistrial based upon prejudicial character evidence being countered by curative instructions). Accordingly, we hold that the denial of the mistrial was not an abuse of discretion.
As a result of our analyses, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
|