Opinion ID: 1954318
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: did the trial court commit reversible error in failing to grant the appellant's motion for a mistrial after a prospective juror made a prejudicial remark during voir dire in the presence of the jury panel?

Text: This assignment arises from a response given during the voir dire of the jury. No transcript of the voir dire is included in the record, but the court and the parties placed the operative facts of this assignment into the record and a statement by the trial court is as follows: Let the record show that during the voir dire of a juror, White, that the State asked the juror a question, to-wit: do you know Birdlegs (Alexander), to which the juror responded I know his wife and I have come to the jail with her before or words to that effect, whereupon, Attorney for the Defendant approached the bench and requested that a mistrial be declared because of the reference made by the juror as to the jail, as in Mr. Dyer's opinion, such was prejudicial to the defendant. An analysis of this assignment of error is difficult as it is not clear what the jurors heard during voir dire. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the jurors knew that Alexander was Peterson's co-indictee. We have stated many times that it is the duty of the appellant to present a record of trial which is sufficient to support his assignments of error. Winters v. State, 473 So.2d 452, 457 (Miss. 1985); Kelly v. State, 463 So.2d 1070, 1073 (Miss. 1985); Dorrough v. State, 437 So.2d 35, 37 (Miss. 1983). Based on what we have before us we cannot say from the evidence in this record that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying Peterson's motion for a mistrial. This assignment is without merit.