Opinion ID: 1807882
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the jury heard testimony concerning the issuance of a traffic citation to appellant ronald a. clanton, which was contrary to mississippi statutory law and was clearly prejudicial.

Text: Officer Gerald Legge, Jr., Batesville Police Department, an investigating officer at the scene, was called as a witness by the appellees. A part of his testimony objected to by the appellants, follows: (COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE MR. FINCH) (EXAMINATION OF OFFICER LEGGE) Q. Okay. Did you at that time, tell any of the parties to go to the Police Station or go home or what, if anything, did you tell them to do? A. I just made out the standard report and I didn't as far as I can remember give any special instructions to anybody as to what they needed to do other than be  when the citation was issued, just how to take care of that. COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT (Mr. Goza): Your Honor, I object to anything he asked ... THE COURT: I sustain it. That doesn't have any part in this procedure. Q. And, that concluded your investigation? COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT (Mr. Goza): ... and, ask the Jury not to take it into consideration. THE COURT: Did you ask me to clarify that to the Jury? COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT (Mr. Goza): Yes, I did. I ask that the Court instruct the Jury on it. The lower court then proceeded to instruct the jury to disregard the statement and reference made by the police officer. Appellants contend that the answer by Officer Legge was in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated § 63-15-23 (1972), and that it was prejudicial, even though the lower court instructed the jury to disregard the testimony. Section 63-15-23 provides that the officer's report required by Mississippi Code Annotated § 63-15-9, the action taken by the department, and the findings of the department upon which such action was based, shall not be referred to in any way, or be any evidence of either party's negligence, at a trial to recover damages. There is no merit in this assignment for several reasons: (1) The answer did not specify that a citation was given to appellant Clanton; (2) The lower court sustained appellant's objection and instructed the jury to disregard the answer; (3) Counsel for appellants did not move for a mistrial; (4) Subsequently, the lower court granted a directed verdict on liability. If the appellants thought they were prejudiced by the officer's statement to the extent that it could not be cured by the instruction of the court to disregard the statement, then the appellants should have requested a mistrial. The appellants may not wait until after a verdict has been returned unfavorable to them and then raise the point for the first time on motion for new trial. Anderson v. Jaeger, 317 So.2d 902 (Miss. 1975); Robertshaw Trustees v. Columbus & G. Ry. Co., 185 Miss. 717, 188 So. 308 (1939); Ratliff v. State, 313 So.2d 386 (Miss. 1975).