Title: Foster v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

741 S.W.2d 251 (1987) 294 Ark. 146 David FOSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. No. CR 87-138. Supreme Court of Arkansas. December 21, 1987. *252 Susan Wilson, Deputy Public Defender, Little Rock, for appellant. J. Blake Hendrix, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee. HOLT, Chief Justice. David Foster was convicted of rape [Ark. Stat.Ann. § 41-1803 (Repl.1977)] and sentenced to thirty-five years imprisonment. On appeal he argues that the judge erred in denying his motion for new trial since the prosecuting attorney engaged in prejudicial conduct during the course of the trial. We find no error and affirm. The victim was raped on August 16, 1986. She positively identified Foster, who was a friend of her daughter, in a photographic lineup six days after the rape and also at trial. One of the state's medical experts testified that upon examination of the victim approximately four hours subsequent to the rape, he found fresh bruises on her chest and sperm in the vaginal vault. The prosecution's forensic serologist testified that he found an "A" blood group substance on the vaginal swabs which matched both Foster's and the victim's blood group. During the investigation of the rape, Foster made the following exculpatory statement to Sergeant Carol Kimble of the Pulaski County Sheriff's Department: "I have never been in the house with [the victim]." At trial, this statement was not introduced into evidence but was referred to by both the defense and prosecution when questioning various witnesses. Later, in his closing argument, defense counsel stated: In the state's closing rebuttal, the prosecutor responded: Defense counsel interrupted with an objection, which was sustained by the trial court. The defense then moved for a mistrial, which the trial court took under advisement, while at the same time admonishing the jury: At the conclusion of trial, the motion for mistrial was denied, and the jury returned its verdict of guilty. Foster filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court. It found that any error committed *253 was cured by the admonition. We agree. The decision whether to grant a new trial is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion or manifest prejudice to the complaining party. Vasquez v. State, 287 Ark. 468, 701 S.W.2d 357 (1985). Unlike the statement in Timmons v. State, 286 Ark. 42, 688 S.W.2d 944 (1985), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that the error of trial counsel was prejudicial to Foster. An admonition to the jury usually cures a prejudicial statement unless it is so patently inflammatory that justice could not be served by continuing the trial. Abraham v. State, 274 Ark. 506, 625 S.W.2d 518 (1981). What little prejudice that may have resulted from the prosecutor's statement was cured by the trial court's admonition. Affirmed.