Opinion ID: 1099664
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Improper other crimes evidence

Text: La.C.Cr.P. art. 770(2) mandates a mistrial when a remark or comment, made within the hearing of the jury by the judge, district attorney, or a court official, during the trial or in argument, refers directly or indirectly to ... [a]nother crime committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant as to which evidence is not admissible. Unsolicited and unresponsive testimony, however, is not chargeable against the state to provide a ground for mandatory reversal of a conviction. [26] Defendant contends that impermissible other crimes evidence was improperly admitted when the state played a portion of the tape recording of Ms. Menard's 911 call; specifically, defendant objects to her remark that two [unidentified] blacks had committed some robberies in the area. Defendant stresses that the state agreed to excise this information from the tape before playing it in front of the jury. This unsolicited remark inadvertently left in the 911 tape is not a grounds for a mandatory mistrial under La.C.Cr.P. art. 770(2); rather, this oblique and ambiguous reference falls under La.C.Cr.P. art. 771, which provides for a discretionary mistrial when a witness' prejudicial remarks render it impossible for the defendant to obtain a fair trial. State v. Smith, 418 So.2d 515, 522 (La.1982); State v. Prudholm, 446 So.2d 729, 741 (La.1984). Such is not the case here. Ms. Menard's remark did not refer to any specific crime committed by defendant; she merely referenced her personal knowledge of recent robberies committed in her neighborhood by two unidentified African-American males.