Opinion ID: 2594572
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Denying Motion for Mistrial

Text: Defendant claims that the trial court committed reversible error under state law when it denied his motion for a mistrial following a witness's reference to Ronaldo Ayala's case. Juan Manuel Meza testified for the prosecution. He had previously testified at Ronaldo Ayala's trial. ( People v. Ayala, supra, 23 Cal.4th 225, 243-244, 96 Cal. Rptr.2d 682.) The parties agreed, in a discussion with the court and Meza before Meza's testimony, that Meza would refer to Ronaldo Ayala's trial by a euphemism such as the `previous proceedings' or the `1988 proceedings' and that the word `trial' is not to be utilized. As Meza was beginning to testify about defendant and Ronaldo Ayala's plan to rob and murder people at the automobile body shop, this exchange occurred between the prosecutor and Meza: Q. Did I tell you that we would ask the judge to reconsider your sentencing? A. Yes. Q. And when was that to have occurred? A. When I testified on the case of Ronaldo Ayala. Defendant objected, but the court overruled the objection, stating, As to the sequence and [insofar as] it was to be at a hearing, the answer will remain. At the next recess, defendant moved for a mistrial on the basis that Meza was not to allude to the trial of Ronaldo Ayala, but the court denied the motion. We review a ruling denying a motion for mistrial for abuse of discretion. ( People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 749, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203, 976 P.2d 754.) We find none. [A] motion for mistrial should be granted only when `a party's chances of receiving a fair trial have been irreparably damaged.' ( People v. Ayala, supra, 23 Cal.4th 225, 282, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 682.) Defendant has not shown that any irreparable damageindeed, any damage at alloccurred here. Meza's comment was, as the People argue, innocuous. The jury had already been exposed to evidence that Ronaldo Ayala robbed and killed along with defendant. Indeed, Meza himself testified, without objection, that Ronaldo Ayala said, at a meeting to plan the robbery, that every victim of the robbery was to be bound with duct tape and killed. Finally, the jury was instructed, before beginning to deliberate, that it was not to discuss or consider the legal fate of any perpetrator other than defendant. There was no error. And for the foregoing reasons, we also reject defendant's argument that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to grant his motion for mistrial because the prosecutor, in his rebuttal argument, referred twice to witnesses' attendance at more than one trial.