Opinion ID: 1136800
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the trial court err in denying a motion for a mistrial when a witness testified Herrington beat his wife?

Text: During the testimony of M.S., the following exchange took place: Q: Why did you tell her then? A: Because my cousin, Amanda, kept egging it on, and that we had brought up the subject  well  the subject had been brought up about David. We had heard David had been beating my mother, and  DEFENSE COUNSEL: We are going to object to that, Your Honor, and move to strike. THE COURT: Sustained. DEFENSE COUNSEL: And ask that the jury be instructed. THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen, you will disregard the last answer. The direct examination then continued. At the point the witness was tendered for cross-examination, defense counsel asked the trial court to excuse the jury for a motion. When the jury was excused, defense counsel moved for a mistrial based on the statement of M.S. The motion was overruled. The trial court offered to further instruct the jury, if requested. The defense stated he was of the opinion it would be best not to belabor the point further. Initially the State argues that the motion for mistrial is not contemporaneous, and thus the defendant is barred from raising this issue on appeal. Meena v. Wilburn, 603 So.2d 866, 873 (Miss. 1992). Of utmost importance, a judge can only make a determination of prejudice if the defendant makes a timely objection and motion for a mistrial. Strictly speaking, timeliness means the objection and motion must be made contemporaneously with the allegedly improper utterance. This is well-known as the contemporaneous objection rule. Contemporaneousness is critical because it allows the judge to avert a mistrial, if possible, by admonishing the jury to disregard the utterance. Id. (emphasis added). Here the reason behind the procedural bar does not obtain. The jury had already been instructed to disregard the evidence of other crimes. This Court recognizes that errors by trial courts in admitting evidence of crimes not charged may be cured through instructions to the jury. Shoemaker v. State, 502 So.2d 1193, 1195 (Miss. 1987). We presume that jurors follow the trial judge's instructions. Id. The issue is not barred by a short wait until direct examination is complete. No abuse of the judge's discretion occurred for failure to grant a new trial on this issue due to the fact the court instructed the jury to disregard the improper evidence.