Opinion ID: 1707183
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the trial court erred in failing to the admonish the jury to disregard comments made during voir dire.

Text: ś 112. Evans next argues that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial after prospective juror Tedder made certain statements during voir dire. Evans also argues the trial court erred by failing to admonish the venire to disregard these comments. Following questions by the district attorney, prospective juror Tedder indicated that she would be uncomfortable and unable to serve as a juror because she found it very difficult to be in the same room with [Evans].... Following the remark, the district attorney questioned the venire as to whether the fact that someone in your community makes an expression like that affect your ability to be fair to the State of Mississippi or to this defendant? The record reflects that all jurors indicated that it would not. ś 113. Evans later requested the trial court to quash the venire panel and moved for a mistrial. Evans argued that the comments made by juror Tedder were highly prejudicial. In response, the trial court noted the negative response by the veniremen when questioned about the effect of the remarks and held that Evans' motion was not well taken. ś 114. In Brent v. State, 632 So.2d 936, 941 (Miss.1994), this Court held: The decision to declare a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. See Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 512, 98 S.Ct. 824, 834, 54 L.Ed.2d 717 (1978); Grandberry v. Bonner, 653 F.2d 1010 (5th Cir.1981). To find error from a trial judge's failure to declare a mistrial, there must have been an abuse of discretion. Jones v. State, 398 So.2d 1312, 1318 (Miss.1981); Schwarzauer v. State, 339 So.2d 980, 982 (Miss.1976). ś 115. Trial judges in this state are further guided by Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice 5.15 [4] : The court shall declare a mistrial upon the defendant's motion if there occurs during the trial an error or legal defect in the proceeding, or conduct inside or outside the courtroom, resulting in substantial and irreparable prejudice to the defendant's case. ś 116. In Hopson v. State, 625 So.2d 395 (Miss.1993), this Court held the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a mistrial after improper comments by two potential jurors. This Court stated: Benson [v. State, 551 So.2d 188 (Miss. 1989)] clearly applies to this case. In both cases there were improper comments from a potential juror, and in both cases, the follow-up questions revealed that there was nothing to indicate that the venire panel had been biased, prejudiced or would be less than fair in discharging its duty by what had occurred. See West v. State, 463 So.2d 1048, 1054 (Miss.1985). Further, once the trial judge is satisfied that the potential jurors are without prejudice that would prevent them from being fair and impartial jurors, it is within the discretion of the court to make the final determination as to whether the panel should be quashed. Robinson, 253 So.2d at 400. Hopson, 625 So.2d at 403. ś 117. The refusal of the trial court to grant a mistrial was not an abuse of discretion. Although the trial court did not admonish the jury to disregard the comment, the prosecutor immediately questioned the jury as to whether the comment would influence their ability to serve. All jurors gave a negative response. The follow-up question by Mr. Caranna clearly disclosed that no juror felt or believed that the statement made ... would prejudice him or prevent him from being a fair and impartial juror. Id. (quoting Robinson v. State, 253 So.2d 398, 400 (Miss.1971)).