Opinion ID: 1747978
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Claim For Mistrial Sua Sponte Because Race Was Mentioned

Text: Appellant also asserts that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to grant a mistrial on its own motion when the prosecutor in several instances elicited from witnesses the fact that Appellant is black and other parties were white. However, our review of the specific transcript pages, containing the examples that Appellant cites in support of this argument, clearly shows that with regard to the complained of references to race, the prosecutor was merely adducing evidence of race in a legitimate manner as one identifying feature. The following example, from the direct examination of Officer Paul Clark regarding what he observed after arriving at the crime scene, suffices to demonstrate this: A. After Lieutenant Wallace advised that he had moved away from the window, after that a subject came to the front door. Q. You say a subject. Did this appear to be the same person, or could you tell? A. I could not tell, no. Q. Who, if anyone, was with him? A. He was still holding the baby in front of him, and there was another young female that was behind him. Q. When the manWhen this person had been at the window, could you tell if it was a man or a woman? A. No. Q. Could you tell whether they were black or white? A. Black. Q. When the person came to the door, could you tell whether it was a man or a woman? A. As he came out the door. Q. And what thenYou say he, so you must have decided it was a man? A. Yes. Q. And did this person appearDid this person appear to be black or white, the person who came out the door? A. A black male. Thus, Appellant's argument on this claim as well lacks merit.