Opinion ID: 1099664
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Defendant's outburst

Text: Defense counsel moved for a mistrial immediately after an outburst by defendant that occurred at the end of the state's closing arguments. Particularly, the outburst occurred as the prosecutor, Ms. Morgan, completed her rebuttal closing argument, and the following exchange took place: DEFENDANT: Before you sit down, Ms. MorganI want to say(Attorneys urge the defendant to keep quiet.) COURT: Let's remove the jury from the court. JURY EXITS COURTROOM (While the jury is exiting the courtroom, the defendant starts to speak again). DEFENDANT: I still want to say (Attorneys and deputies tell the defendant to keep quiet.) DEFENDANT:that Jacobs was convicted of this crime. If I'm the killer, why was he convicted of this damn crime already, Ms. Morgan? That's what I want to know. THE DEPUTIES RESTRAIN THE DEFENDANT FROM SAYING ANYTHING FURTHER AND REMOVE HIM FROM THE COURTROOM. In denying defendant's mistrial motion, the trial judge admonished defendant that if he was unable to keep quiet, the court would have him gagged; admonished Ms. Morgan regarding her comments that apparently provoked this outburst; and admonished the jury, instructing them that: it's been a long and stressful day and I need to instruct you to disregard Mr. Bridgewater's comments. Defendant argues that the prosecutor's improper closing argument provoked his outburst and the ensuing prejudice and that the trial judge's admonishment was insufficient to cure the error. The state counters that defendant's outburst was a deliberate and calculated move from which he should get no benefit. We agree. As former Justice Tate aptly stated in State v. Wiggins, 337 So.2d 1172, 1173 (La.1976), [a] defendant cannot complain that prejudicial conduct requires a mistrial, when the alleged prejudice was created by his own obstructive conduct met by a reasoned and ordered reaction by the trial court in the interest of maintaining orderly procedure in the courtroom. Id.; State v. Shank, 448 So.2d 654, 658 (La.1984)(defendant is [not] entitled to a new trial because his first was tainted with prejudice caused by his own conduct.). [25]