Title: Nobles v. Casebier

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

James E. NOBLES v. Pati CASEBIER

96-1137                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered March 3, 1997


1.   Motions -- mistrial discussed -- when proper to grant. -- A
     mistrial is a drastic remedy that should be resorted to only
     when there has been error so prejudicial that justice cannot
     be served by continuing the trial; it is proper only when the
     error is beyond repair and cannot be corrected by any curative
     relief; the granting of a mistrial is within the sound
     discretion of the trial court, and the exercise of that
     discretion will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of
     abuse.  

2.   Motions -- motion for mistrial made without request for
     admonition to jury -- any doubt concerning whether trial court
     abused its discretion negated by failure to request
     admonition. -- When there is doubt concerning whether the
     trial court abused its discretion in denying a mistrial, a
     failure to request an admonition to the jury will negate a
     mistrial motion.
  
3.   Motions -- motion for mistrial denied by trial court -- no
     abuse of discretion found. -- No abuse of discretion was found
     in the trial court's denial of appellant's mistrial motion
     where the judge's comment, when examined in the full context
     of the record, could not be said to be so prejudicial that the
     trial could not continue, where appellant did not request any
     other form of curative relief, such as an admonition, and
     where any potential error was cured by the standard cautionary
     instruction, AMI Civil 3d 101, that was given by the court
     without objection by either party.


     Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court; Harold Erwin, Judge;
affirmed.
     Larry J. Steele, for appellant.
     Barrett & Deacon, by:  David W. Cahoon and D.P. Marshall, Jr.,
for appellee.  

     W.H."Dub" Arnold, Chief Justice.
     This is a personal injury case arising out of an automobile
accident on January 11, 1994.  The jury rendered a verdict in favor
of the appellee, Pati Casebier.  Appellant James Nobles raises one
issue on appeal.  He contends that the trial court made an improper
comment on the evidence, thus warranting a mistrial.  We find no
error and affirm.
     The accident occurred while Mr. Nobles was driving his 1982
Chevrolet pickup truck on State Highway 1.  While in the process of
turning left from the highway, he was struck by a 1989 Ford
automobile driven by Ms. Casebier.  Mr. Nobles filed suit against
Ms. Casebier alleging that her negligence was the proximate cause
of the accident and that, as a result thereof, he sustained
personal injuries.  Ms. Casebier denied any negligence, and the
matter was set for trial.  
     On February 29, 1996, the case was tried before a jury in
Randolph County.  After jury selection and opening statements, Mr.
Nobles presented his case, consisting of his own testimony, the
testimony of chiropractor Dr. Evana Dion Taylor Pickett, the
testimony of Ms. Casebier, and the evidentiary depositions of the
investigating officer and another chiropractor, Dr. Jim Taylor. 
Dr. Taylor's deposition was read to the jury by the attorneys for
the parties.  The cross-examination portion was read by Ms.
Casebier's attorney, David Cahoon.  Near the end of Mr. Cahoon's
reading, the following remarks were made in the presence of the
jury:

     MR. CAHOON:  I'm going to end my cross-examination.  My
     eyes hurt.  I'll read part of your redirect but I'm not
     going to read any more.  That's enough.

     THE COURT:  Well, are you okay?

     MR. CAHOON:  Well, I got a headache, that's all.  Started
     wearing glasses about a month ago and it's really
     bothering me.
     THE COURT:  Maybe you need to go to the chiropractor.

     MR. CAHOON:  Maybe so.

     THE COURT:  Okay.  You want to get down and read yours or
     you want to quit?

     MR. STEELE [counsel for Mr. Nobles]:  Judge, could we
     approach the bench?

     THE COURT:  Yeah.

     (Thereupon the following is held at the bench out of the
     hearing of the jury):

     MR. STEELE:  I know that was an inadvertent remark, but
     obviously the jury laughed and, you know, I know that you
     didn't mean anything by it, but, but I, it was a
     disparaging remark on chiropractors or at least it could
     have been taken that way.

     THE COURT:  Why, I didn't mean that.  I like
     chiropractors.

     MR. STEELE:  I know but, but the jury got a big laugh out
     of it and...

     THE COURT:  Do you want a mistrial?

     MR. STEELE:  Yes, sir.

     THE COURT:  Overruled.

     MR. STEELE:  Thank you.

   
     After the colloquy at the bench, Mr. Steele read a page and a
half of redirect testimony from the deposition.  Both parties then
rested their cases and agreed upon the jury instructions that were
to be read to the jury.  After closing arguments, the jury retired
to deliberate and eventually returned with a unanimous verdict in
favor of Ms. Casebier.  Appeal was taken to this court by Mr.
Nobles, pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(16).  He characterizes
his issue on appeal as follows:

     The joke made by the court about chiropractors during the
     reading of the appellant's evidentiary deposition taken
     from a chiropractor was an improper comment on the
     evidence and was error.


     Mr. Nobles argues that his request for a mistrial should have
been granted.  A mistrial is a drastic remedy which should be
resorted to only when there has been error so prejudicial that
justice cannot be served by continuing the trial.  Webb v. State,
327 Ark. 51, ___ S.W.2d ___ (1997);  Davis v. State, 325 Ark. 96,
925 S.W.2d 768 (1996);  Stewart v. State, 320 Ark. 75,