Opinion ID: 2585418
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Previous Trial

Text: The trial court ordered that no mention be made of the prior stalking trial in response to a motion in limine filed by Whitesell. Whitesell argues that the order was violated when Julie declared in response to a cross-examination question about the preliminary hearing transcript: I thought you were talking about the first trial, that I had theâ the notes from the first trial. Additionally, Whitesell argues that another violation occurred when Moreland referred to the prior trial when explaining on cross-examination that he did not know that his photographs of the wheat field path had not turned out until our first case with this, first trial. Whitesell's motion for a mistrial on both these occurrences was overruled by the trial court. Whitesell does not explain how these two minor statements by Julie and Moreland prejudiced him or denied him the right to a fair trial, nor why the trial court should have granted him a mistrial on the basis of the testimony. Both statements were inadvertent and had no prejudicial effect on the trial. Whitesell has not met his burden of proof in showing that the statements prejudiced his right to a fair trial. The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in denying Whitesell's motion for a mistrial.