Opinion ID: 2543191
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Prosecutorial Conduct During Defendant's Testimony Regarding Sexual Abuse

Text: On direct examination, defendant was asked if his stepmother had sexually molested him and he replied that she had. At that point, apparently, the prosecutor reacted in some visible and audible way to defendant's answer. Defense counsel asked for a hearing outside the presence of the jury. The trial court did not grant the request, but directed the prosecutor not to make any other noises at his table. At the next opportunity outside the presence of the jury, defense counsel moved for a mistrial based on the prosecutor's previous conduct. He stated: I couldn't actually see what counsel did but it had the sound as if he had just dropped a binder or kind of flipped a notepad. But kind of like in disgust he threw something and it was very audible to me.... I think he was trying to send a message to the jury that he personally thinks that [defendant's testimony was] untrue. And that's the only message I think that you could get from that reaction. Counsel also argued that the prosecutor, Edward Jagels, the Kern County District Attorney had a lot of stature in this community and when he does something like that, I think it has a lot of influence over jurors. The prosecutor stated that he had dropped a yellow pad he was holding on a binder, that the sound made was quite soft, and that he did so out of surprise because he had had no previous information about defendant's claims of molestation. The court denied the motion for the mistrial, stating: What I observed was essentially what [defense counsel] has described, that counsel slammed down something, [it] wasn't super loud, and rolled his eyes. And Mr. Jagels, you know that's inappropriate in front of the jury. I don't want it to happen again. Defendant contends that the denial of this motion was in error, and violated his Eight and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a fair penalty trial and reliable penalty determination. As the trial court's comments indicate, the prosecutor's behavior was inappropriate. (See People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 834, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656, 952 P.2d 673 [prosecutor audibly laughing in the middle of defense counsel's examination of various witnesses is misconduct].) But such conduct does not necessarily require a declaration of a mistrial. Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions. ( People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 854, 180 Cal.Rptr. 640, 640 P.2d 776.) A trial court should grant a mistrial only when a party's chances of receiving a fair trial have been irreparably damaged, and we use the deferential abuse of discretion standard to review a trial court ruling denying a mistrial. ( People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 555, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 802, 58 P.3d 931.) We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial. The trial court was in the best position to gauge the exact nature of the prosecutor's conduct and its likely effect on the jury. Nothing in the record undermines the trial court's implicit conclusion that the prosecutor's brief episode of inappropriate conduct did not irreparably damage defendant's chance of receiving a fair trial.