Opinion ID: 1578748
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion for Mistrial Was Properly Denied.

Text: Vincent contends that the trial court committed reversible error by denying his mistrial motion following a testifying officer's reference to his exercising his right to remain silent. After carefully reviewing the record, we find no error. The Commonwealth called the investigating officer to testify. After the officer described interviewing the alleged victims, the prosecutor then asked him if he had taken any further steps in the investigation. The officer replied, I was unable to interview Mr. Vincent; he chose not to speak to me in reference to this, and that's the only other steps that were taken. Vincent objected and moved for a mistrial arguing that his exercising his constitutional right to remain silent was not to be presented to the jury. [8] The prosecutor responded to the objection by stating that the reference to Vincent's declining to speak to the officer was inadvertent, presumably meaning that the prosecutor was seeking a response that did not indicate whether Vincent would talk to police. The trial court sustained Vincent's objection, offered to admonish the jury, and denied the mistrial motion. Vincent declined the admonition because he did not want to draw more attention to the officer's remark. Vincent does not point to any other instances at trial of the prosecution drawing attention to his exercising his right to remain silent. While evidence that a defendant exercised his right to remain silent should not be admitted at trial, [9] it appears in context that the prosecution did not intentionally elicit reference to Vincent's refusal to speak to police. And the trial court offered an admonition, which presumably would have cured any error unless one of two exceptions had been met: (1) when there is an overwhelming probability that the jury will be unable to follow the court's admonition and there is a strong likelihood that the effect of the inadmissible evidence would be devastating to the defendant, or (2) when the question was asked without a factual basis and was inflammatory or highly prejudicial. [10] Neither of these two exceptions appears applicable here. The reference to Vincent's exercising his right to remain silent was isolated and brief and, apparently, not intentionally elicited by the prosecution. Since Vincent has not shown that this reference compromised his right to a fair trial, [11] we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the mistrial motion. [12]