Opinion ID: 2461900
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Did the prosecutor commit misconduct by violating a pre-trial order regarding uncharged misconduct evidence?

Text: [¶ 48] Prior to trial, the appellant filed Defendant's Demand for Speedy Trial and Demand for Notice of Intent to Introduce Evidence Under 404(b). [9] In response, the State filed State's Notice of Intent to Offer W.R.E. 404(b) Evidence at Trial, and State's W.R.E. 404(b) Gleason Analysis. [10] In those filings, the State identified with specificity thirteen prior instances of violent conduct by the appellant. The district court heard the W.R.E. 404(b) matter on December 15, 2009, and indicated its intent to rule on it that day. The parties have not, however, identified when the district court may have ruled upon the matter, and this Court was unable to locate any such order in the record. Consequently, it remains a mystery what, if any, order may have been entered. [¶ 49] In this vacuum, we will attempt to address the issue now raised. During the direct examination of Investigator Ferrin, the prosecutor brought up the subject of the Crime Stoppers call mentioned above, and the following exchange occurred: Q. When that call name [sic] in to crime stoppers what information was relayed? A. It was a very short call that came in on the crime stoppers line, identified a suspect. Q. Who was that? A. [The appellant.] Q. When you got that tip do you recall what you did with that? A. I forwarded that information to the State Division of Criminal Investigation who was handling the lead as the investigating agency for the crime. Q. When you received that particular tip, did it ring any bells with you? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was that? A. That [the appellant] had come up in previous investigations that we had worked. Q. From [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Don'tdon'tthe answer, strike that, please. [¶ 50] Because of this last statement by the district courtgranting the objection and striking the answer, this issue does not require further analysis. In two separate instructionsInstruction No. 1 and Instruction No. 8the jury was instructed to disregard any testimony ordered stricken. As stated previously herein, we presume that jurors follow the court's instructions. Brown, 953 P.2d at 1177. Moreover, were we to ignore that presumption and look substantively at Ferrin's statement in the context of all the evidence properly admitted at trial, we cannot say that this very general and relatively innocuous comment was so unfairly prejudicial as to require a new trial.