Opinion ID: 1829144
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Motion for Mistrial Due to Grimm's Testimony

Text: McLemore claims the trial court erred in not granting his motion for mistrial which was made after Grimm's testimony. Defense counsel objected to Grimm's mention of the shit [McLemore] was in before, you know, for down in North Carolina. The trial court overruled the objection and later overruled McLemore's motion for mistrial based on this testimony, determining that the testimony was not in violation of the pretrial order regarding McLemore's prior conviction and incarceration because Grimm's statement did not mention that McLemore had been previously convicted or incarcerated. The decision to grant a motion for mistrial is within the discretion of the trial court and will be upheld on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Bjorklund, 258 Neb. 432, 604 N.W.2d 169 (2000); State v. Myers, 258 Neb. 272, 603 N.W.2d 390 (1999). Grimm's statement in the present case did not violate the pretrial order. Grimm's vague statement did not inform the jury of the nature of the incident in North Carolina, nor did it mention McLemore's previous conviction and incarceration. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in not granting McLemore's motion for mistrial.