Case Name: Brenda SHOEMAKER v. STATE of Mississippi
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1987-02-18
Citations: 502 So. 2d 1193
Docket Number: No. 56670
Parties: Brenda SHOEMAKER v. STATE of Mississippi.
Judges: WALKER, C.J., and ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and DAN M. LEE, SULLIVAN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 502
Pages: 1193–1197

Head Matter:
Brenda SHOEMAKER v. STATE of Mississippi.
No. 56670.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Feb. 18, 1987.
Rehearing Denied March 4, 1987.
H. David Clark, II, Clark & Brown, Forest, for appellant.
Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen. by De-Witt Allred, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Opinion:
ANDERSON, Justice,
for the Court:
This appeal from the Circuit Court of Rankin County involves a question of the trial court's efforts to cure a prosecutor's improper statement to the jury. Finding no prejudicial error we affirm.
In October 1982, Brenda Shoemaker and her children entered a Western Auto Store in Brandon. Shortly after her departure, the proprietors noticed that a diamond ring was missing from its case. Lacking any evidence of the thief's identity, they decided there would be little point in calling the police. There, no doubt, the matter would have ended had not Brenda Shoemaker been so hardy as to bring the missing ring to the store in January 1983. She claimed that her husband had given it to her for Christmas, but she then told them she didn't want it and would like a refund. The owners recognized the ring and called the police, who soon arrived and arrested Mrs. Shoemaker. She was subsequently indicted and convicted for receiving stolen goods; her eight-year-old son took the ring and gave it to his mother. The trial judge sentenced her to five years with the Department of Corrections with the last four years suspended, provided she maintained good behavior under supervised probation.
On appeal, she adduces four assignments of error, of which only one merits close consideration.
During direct examination, Mrs. Shoemaker was asked whether she had ever been convicted of other misdemeanors. She replied:
I believe back in '71 it was abusive language and disturbing the peace. I think I must have been seventeen at that time or just barely eighteen anyway. Then in 1972 for public drunk and abusive language and then in 1980 for two shoplift-ings.
During cross-examination of the defendant, the following occurred:
Q. Now, you tell this jury that you hadn't shoplifted or attempted to shoplift anything since 1980.
A. Correct.
Q. Isn't it a fact that right down here at the White's Auto Store
BY MR. TAYLOR: I'm going to object—
Q. —that
BY MR. TAYLOR: I'm going to ask for a mistrial.
BY SECOND DEFENSE COUNSEL: I ask for a mistrial, judge.
BY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: They brought it out.
The trial judge excluded the jury, listened to the court reporter's tape recording and had the stenographic notes read to him. After much discussion with counsel, the trial judge overruled the motion for a mistrial, but stated he would permit questions by the district attorney about any felony or rr'sdemeanor convictions of the defendant. Upon the jury's return, the trial judge admonished the jury without request of defense counsel as follows:
BY THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen, when we stopped before, Mr. Craft was attempting to ask a question concerning some alleged incident at the White Auto Store in Brandon. He didn't get but about half his question out, and then everybody was objecting at once. I have played back the tape and listened and asked the court reporter to read back what she heard, and she didn't get much past that point so there is nothing in my judgment that could be there other than perhaps some inference that the Defendant was involved in some incident at the White Auto Store and might have in some way been similar to the present issue before the Court. I have ruled that that is not admissible and any inference about that should not be drawn and I am instructing you to completely disregard that question and to not have any inference in your mind from the fact that Mr. Craft started into some question about an incident of a similar nature at the White Auto Store. I want to be sure that we can do that. Starting with Mary Spencer, can you tell me on your oath that you can disregard that question and absolutely draw no inference from that question?
Eleven of the jurors answered affirmatively; the twelfth juror, who answered in the negative, was excused and replaced by the alternate juror.
The trial judge was, of course, right in holding that evidence of past crimes not resulting in convictions is generally inadmissible. E.g., Lightsey v. State, 493 So.2d 375 (Miss.1986); Bolin v. State, 489 So.2d 1091 (Miss.1986); Brown v. State, 483 So.2d 328 (Miss.1986). The question is whether his instruction to the jury cured the evil.
We have repeatedly held that jurors are presumed to follow the trial judge's instructions. E.g., Walker v. State, 473 So.2d 435, 440 (Miss.1985); Fairley v. State, 467 So.2d 894 (Miss.1985). Appellant, argues, however, that under the facts of this case the curative instruction had the effect of drawing the jury's attention to the impermissible statement and emphasizing it. Therefore, he contends, nothing short of a reversal and a new trial can undo the evil.
We believe that by adopting such a view, we would show insufficient confidence in the good sense and discretion of trial judges. If we agreed with the appellant, we would put trial judges in a no-win situation once incompetent and inflammatory testimony has been offered. If a trial judge sustains objections to such evidence without comment, he would be reversed, since on appeal, we presume that prejudice has resulted from such an infraction. Smith v. State, 457 So.2d 327, 335-36 (Miss.1984); Tudor v. State, 299 So.2d 682, 685-86 (Miss.1974); McDonald v. State, 285 So.2d 177,178 (Miss.1973). But what if he employs curative measures? Under the appellant's proposed rule, we would reverse him for that, too. He would be damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
The same situation arose in Home v. State, 487 So.2d 213 (Miss.1986). There, a witness in a narcotics case was asked about another alleged drug-related offense. Upon objection, the trial judge called the question "highly improper" and instructed the jury to disregard it. Each juror was polled on his ability to comply with this instruction, and each gave a satisfactory response. A defense motion for a mistrial was denied.
On appeal, we reversed for other reasons, but we declined to reverse because of the denial of a mistrial. A mistrial in such a case is proper "unless it can be said with confidence that the inflammatory material had no harmful effect on the jury." Tudor v. State, 299 So.2d 682, 694 (Miss.1974). In Home, we indicated that the "thorough curative measures" employed by the trial judge gave us such confidence. Home, 487 So.2d at 215.
It seems to us that the same principle should apply here. Common sense dictates that the trial judge will ordinarily be in a better position to assess the amount of prejudice resulting from such an incident than we are on appeal. This case does not appear to be among the rare exceptions.
Therefore, the judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
WALKER, C.J., and ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and DAN M. LEE, SULLIVAN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
HAWKINS, P.J., and PRATHER and ROBERTSON, JJ., dissent.