Opinion ID: 1633716
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Comment on impartial evidence

Text: Hedge contends, in his Point IV, that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial because the judge commented on the evidence when he referred to a diagram of the crime scene as impartial. As the diagram, which displayed the location of the body, various vehicles, and other points of reference in relation to the trailer house, was being marked for identification, the trial court advised the jurors: This is suppose[d] to be just an impartial diagram of the scene where everything was at the time to aid and assist you in understanding the evidence and testimony. Hedge's attorney moved for a mistrial, asserting that the court had commented on the evidence, and the court denied the motion. At that point, Hedge's counsel requested an admonition, and the court addressed the jury as follows: All right, ladies and gentlemen, you were told, the Court a moment ago called this an impartial diagram. It's up to you. It's up to you to determine whether or not it is impartial or not. On appeal, Hedge claims that the admonition compounded the error. Considering the context of the trial court's original remarks and admonition, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial. The diagram in question simply identified locations at the crime scene and imported no implication of guilt on Hedge's part; the illustration thus bore neutral evidentiary value, and the trial court merely pointed out the obvious. Moreover, any error inherent in the trial court's statement to the jurors was cured by the admonition, given promptly upon Hedge's request, which in effect instructed the jury to disregard the previous remark and reach its own conclusion. See Crossley v. State, 304 Ark. 378, 802 S.W.2d 459 (1991). Hence, Hedge cannot now assert prejudice. Magar v. State, supra .