Opinion ID: 1485008
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The trial judge's instruction cured Silva's arguably prejudicial testimony.

Text: McNair next asserts that the trial judge erred by denying McNair's motion for a mistrial after Silva testified where he had seen the photograph. McNair argues that Silva's testimony directly contravened the trial judge's instruction, and, thus, warranted a mistrial. McNair argues that the trial judge's curative instruction to the jury insufficiently mitigated the harm from Silva's blundered testimony. We review a trial judge's denial of a motion for a mistrial for abuse of discretion. [12] We stated recently in Banther v. State that: When a trial judge denies a mistrial application, that decision will be reversed on appeal only if it is based upon unreasonable or capricious grounds. A trial judge should grant a mistrial only where there is a manifest necessity or the ends of public justice would be otherwise defeated. The remedy of a mistrial is mandated only when there are no meaningful and practical alternative to that remedy. [13] A trial judge's prompt curative instructions are presumed to cure error and adequately direct the jury to disregard improper matters for consideration. Juries are presumed to follow the trial judge's instructions. [14] Here, the trial judge instructed the jury to disregard the last statement that [Silva] made as to where and in what manner the saw the photograph. The trial judge gave the curative instruction immediately after the parties discussed the issue. Because the trial judge's curative instruction presumptively remedied any prejudice caused by Silva's statement, the trial judge did not abuse her discretion by denying a mistrial.