Opinion ID: 2585418
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: violations of motion in limine

Text: The trial court may declare a mistrial when prejudicial conduct makes it impossible to proceed with the trial without injustice to the defendant. K.S.A. 22-3423(1)(c). The decision to declare a mistrial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion. State v. Mayberry, 248 Kan. 369, Syl. ś 8, 807 P.2d 86 (1991); State v. Massey, 242 Kan. 252, Syl. ś 4, 747 P.2d 802 (1987). The trial court is in the best position to determine if its order in limine has been violated and to determine the degree of prejudice a violation may have caused the accused. State v. Aikins, 261 Kan. 346, 378, 932 P.2d 408 (1997). In Stayton v. Stayton, 211 Kan. 560, 562, 506 P.2d 1172 (1973), the court stated: Judicial discretion is abused when judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court. If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion. All judicial discretion may thus be considered as exercisable only within the bounds of reason and justice in the broader sense, and only to be abused when it plainly overpasses those bounds. A party seeking a mistrial has the burden of showing that the party has been substantially prejudiced by the error. State v. McClanahan, 259 Kan. 86, 92, 910 P.2d 193 (1996).
The trial court ordered that no mention be made of the prior stalking trial in response to a motion in limine filed by Whitesell. Whitesell argues that the order was violated when Julie declared in response to a cross-examination question about the preliminary hearing transcript: I thought you were talking about the first trial, that I had theâ the notes from the first trial. Additionally, Whitesell argues that another violation occurred when Moreland referred to the prior trial when explaining on cross-examination that he did not know that his photographs of the wheat field path had not turned out until our first case with this, first trial. Whitesell's motion for a mistrial on both these occurrences was overruled by the trial court. Whitesell does not explain how these two minor statements by Julie and Moreland prejudiced him or denied him the right to a fair trial, nor why the trial court should have granted him a mistrial on the basis of the testimony. Both statements were inadvertent and had no prejudicial effect on the trial. Whitesell has not met his burden of proof in showing that the statements prejudiced his right to a fair trial. The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in denying Whitesell's motion for a mistrial.
Prior to trial, the court ordered that Julie's references to Whitesell's prior mental health history and hospitalizations be limited to identifying where he was at. Whitesell argues that the order was violated on several occasions. Specifically, he argues that Julie violated the order when she testified that after a 1991 argument, she felt like he was anticipating either suicide or killing me. Julie further testified that Whitesell was very upset and suicidal. Detective Varnell also testified to things which Julie had told him, specifically that Whitesell had been in the hospital nine times before and has tried suicide once. Detective Moreland testified that Julie said that [Whitesell] had been hospitalized before and he'd had ... homicidal thoughts. Again, although Whitesell points out testimony which may have allegedly violated the pretrial order in limine, he does not provide any analysis explaining how the violations prejudiced him. Julie's direct testimony was not in violation of the pretrial order. Her comments regarding Whitesell being suicidal were not meant to be a clinical diagnosis or any comment on Whitesell's mental health, but relate to her fear of him and represent her lay perception of his mental state. The comments by Varnell and Moreland cross the line set out by the trial court in this matter concerning Whitesell's mental health history. The trial court specifically limited any discussion of Whitesell's mental history to Julie's comments regarding his location and mentioning that Whitesell had been hospitalized nine times; had been hospitalized before; and that he had tried suicide once violated the order of the trial court. The impact of the violations, however, was slight, given the overall evidence against Whitesell. The trial court is in the best position to determine the degree of prejudice that the violations caused. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial.
Prior to trial, the court sustained Whitesell's motion in limine to prohibit Julie from suggesting at trial that Whitesell took advantage of her vulnerability after her brother's death by having sex with her on the night of her brother's funeral. During trial, Julie testified that she became pregnant with her daughter on November 3rd when I buried my brother. The court denied Whitesell's motion for a mistrial. Again, Whitesell does not set forth any substantive argument why this statement was prejudicial to him or why the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial. Julie did not testify that she thought Whitesell had taken advantage of her, only that she thought she had conceived her daughter on the night of her brother's funeral. Moreover, the trial court immediately struck Julie's statement when Whitesell made a timely objection. The trial court did not err in refusing to grant a mistrial on this issue.
Prior to trial, the court prohibited the State's witnesses from making conclusory statements that they were afraid for Julie's safety. Kyle testified, however, that after meeting [Whitesell]... I'm still fearful for Julie. Whitesell argues that this violation of the pretrial order warrants a new trial. Whitesell did not object during trial and therefore did not preserve this issue for appeal. Whitesell cannot raise an issue on appeal where no contemporaneous objection was made and where the trial court did not have the opportunity to rule. See State v. Sims, 262 Kan. 165, 169-70, 936 P.2d 779 (1997) (failure to object to the admission of evidence at the trial court level precludes review by an appellate court).