Opinion ID: 1740932
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: was it error to deny a mistrial when the prosecutor questioned boches concerning other criminal charges?

Text: The defendant took the stand and during the course of direct-examination by his own attorney was questioned as follows: Q. Mr. Boches, have you ever been a dealer or seller of marijuana? A. No. Q. Have you ever been convicted of any crime involving drugs of any kind? A. No, sir. Q. Ever been convicted of any crime whatsoever? A. No, sir. On cross-examination the prosecutor questioned the defendant and objection was made and sustained as follows: Q. You testified on direct examination that you have never been convicted of any drug violation. You are not suggesting to us, are you, Mr. Boches, that you have never been involved with drugs, are you? A. Never been involved? Q. Yes, sir. A. How do you mean? Q. Well, sir, you tell me. Are you suggesting to this jury that you had no prior involvement in drug traffic? BY MR. SMITH: We object to the form of the question. Whether or not he's participated in drug traffic, convicted for it or whatever it is. I think he's entitled to know what involved means. Does it mean he's smoked a joint or does it mean that he's been convicted of a violation? BY JUDGE GARDNER: All right, counsel. BY THE WITNESS: I will answer the question, if counsel wants me to. BY JUDGE GARDNER: All right. BY MR. BOWEN: (continuing) Q. Have you ever been charged with a drug violation? BY MR. SMITH: We object. BY JUDGE GARDNER: Sustained. BY MR. BOWEN: Your Honor, I have nothing further of this witness. BY JUDGE GARDNER: Redirect? BY MR. SMITH: We would like to move for a mistrial on the basis of that question which counsel knew was very improper. BY JUDGE GARDNER: We will take it up in a moment. Following re-direct examination of the defendant, the trial judge admonished the jury as follows: BY JUDGE GARDNER: All right, you may step down. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, a few moments ago a question was asked by the Assistant District Attorney, the defense objected to that question, I have  I sustained the objection at that time, which did not require that the witness answer that question. I instruct you at this time that you are to disregard the question itself. All right? The jury was excused and the motion for mistrial was argued, and the trial judge denied the motion. At the close of all the evidence, the defense renewed the motion for mistrial, and the trial judge ruled as follows: BY JUDGE GARDNER: All right, counsel, the Court is of the opinion that it should be denied also. At the time it occurred, I sustained the Defendant's objection to that and Defendant then proceeded to cross examine or to redirect and I then, at the first opportunity, I advised the jury that I had sustained the objection and that they were not to infer from the question itself anything whatsoever, to disregard it. Furthermore, as I recall, the examination conducted by defense counsel of the Defendant himself the questions elicited by counsel or the questions themselves and the answers elicited from the Defendant were of such nature that you came awfully close to opening up this whole avenue. For that reason, I would not allow the State to go in because I don't hink it's proper, but I do not feel there has been anything or that that is any cause for a mistrial in this case. Although the defendant on direct examination opened this area to the district attorney on cross examination, still the question posed by the district attorney was improper. The court properly sustained defendant's objection to the question, which is a proper exercise of the trial court's discretion to control the extent of cross examination. Shanklin v. State, 290 So.2d 625, 627 (Miss. 1974). The trial judge then admonished the jury to disregard the question. The jury may be presumed to have heeded the trial court's admonishment, Williams v. State, 427 So.2d 100, 103 (Miss. 1983), and unless egregious circumstances or bad faith of the prosecutor is present, a mistrial should not be entered. Each case must be decided on its own peculiar facts. Henderson v. State, 403 So.2d 139, 140 (Miss. 1981). In Smith v. State, 457 So.2d 327, 334 (Miss. 1984), we reaffirmed that a witness or defendant may not be asked about a crime for which he was charged, but not convicted. But this is not reversible error if the trial judge properly instructed the jury to disregard the question. Smith, 457 So.2d at 334. As the record clearly reflects, the trial judge acted properly in this record. See Smith, 457 So.2d at 334; see also, Johnson v. State, 475 So.2d 1136, 1142 (Miss. 1985); Barnette v. State, 481 So.2d 788, 790 (Miss. 1985). On this record defendant was clearly not entitled to a mistrial and there is no merit to this assignment of error.