Opinion ID: 1830839
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: (C) Kathy Bolen's Comment

Text: ¶ 62. During Hughes' cross-examination of Kathy Bolen, Mrs. Bolen, in attempting to respond to a question posed by the defense, stated that Hughes had previously been in jail: Q. [COUNSEL FOR HUGHES]: How Many times have you cut William's hair? A. KATHY BOLEN [Witness]: Approximately three times. Q. Do you know when the first time was when you cut his hair? A. It was a short time after he got out of jail. Q. I mean just the dates. Do you know the A. I don't know the date. No, I don't. Defense Counsel: I object and move for a mistrial, Your Honor. The Court: Overruled. Motion denied. ¶ 63. Hughes argues that this warrants a mistrial. ¶ 64. This Court was faced with a similar situation occurring during the State's direct in Watson v. State: Q. [STATE]: Have you had any contact with [Watson] lately? A. DEBRA JEAN WILDER [Witness]: He's come by the office where I work, but we didn't really talk. He was just telling me he was out of jail.... Watson v. State, 521 So.2d 1290, 1293 (Miss.1988). This Court noted that [t]he answer of Wilder was not responsive to the question and there was no purposeful effort or intent on the part of the State to elicit such information from the witness. Id. at 1294. ¶ 65. The better remedy for an improper comment or question that has been put before the jury is for the court to admonish the jury not to consider the improper statement. Criddle v. State, 633 So.2d 1047, 1048 (Miss.1994)( citing Davis v. State, 530 So.2d 694, 697 (Miss.1988)); Vickery v. State, 535 So.2d 1371, 1380 (Miss.1988) Forrest v. State, 352 So.2d 1328, 1331 (Miss.1977); Myrick v. State, 290 So.2d 259 (Miss.1974); Herron v. State, 287 So.2d 759 (Miss.1974). It is only when the comment is so prejudicial that the curative instruction would not suffice to ensure the defendant a fair trial that reversal is warranted. Criddle, 633 So.2d at 1048 ( citing Reynolds v. State, 585 So.2d 753, 755 (Miss.1991); Roundtree v. State, 568 So.2d 1173, 1177-1178 (Miss. 1990); Bradley v. State, 562 So.2d 1276, 1282 (Miss.1990); Smith v. State, 530 So.2d 155, 161 (Miss.1988); Barlow v. State, 233 So.2d 829, 832 (Miss.1970)). This rule is but a specific application of the general presumption that juries will follow instructions which are given to them and do not rely on the good or bad faith of the prosecutor. Chase v. State, 645 So.2d 829, 853 (Miss.1994). See also Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766, 107 S.Ct. 3102, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987); Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 208, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987); Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 136, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). ¶ 66. In response to the objection and motion for mistrial made by Hughes, the trial court gave the jury a cautionary instruction concerning Mrs. Bolen's testimony. Jury instruction C-13 read as follows: Members of the jury, during the cross examination of Kathy Bolen by the Defendant, through counsel, Ms. Bolen testified in response to a defense question that she had cut the Defendant's hair one time after he got out of jail. However, the Court cautions you that you cannot and must not in any way consider the fact that the Defendant, William Ray Hughes, may have been in jail in the past on unrelated charges as evidence in this concerning the issue of whether or not William Ray Hughes is guilty of the charges for which he is on trial. ¶ 67. In conclusion, while the response was improper and inadmissible, it was also unexpected and was cured the best way possible under the circumstances then existing with the judge's instruction.