Opinion ID: 1833768
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying a mistrial when a witness entered the courtroom in chains.

Text: ¶ 9. The defense called Orlando Smith (Smith) to testify on behalf of Buckley. Smith entered the courtroom in leg chains. Upon seeing this, the judge immediately asked Smith to leave the room, and the leg chains were removed. Outside the presence of the jury, the judge reprimanded the Sheriff and heard Buckley's motion for a mistrial. The judge subsequently denied Buckley's motion for a mistrial pointing out the following:  The judge noticed almost immediately that Smith was wearing leg irons and had them removed outside the presence of the jury.  Given the positioning of the jury box and the entry of Smith in relation to the jury box, it would have been very hard for the jury to see the leg chains.  Smith was wearing long, loose-fitting pants and the chains were not shiny, making it very difficult for the jury to see the chains.  Smith was in view of the jury for only five to ten feet.  Smith was called by Everett, and Everett had recently talked to Smith, giving Everett notice of the chains.  The judge offered to voir dire the jury for prejudice and/or to instruct them to disregard the chains. Everett declined, reasoning that such questions or instruction would draw unnecessary attention to the issue. ¶ 10. Buckley claims that Smith's appearance unduly prejudiced the jury and that nothing could cure this error. Case law, however, holds otherwise. As noted by the State, Fisher v. State, 532 So.2d 992, 999 (Miss.1988) and Rush v. State, 301 So.2d 297, 300 (Miss.1974) clearly enunciate that where there is no record that the jury saw the restraints or where the restraints were quickly removed such is harmless error. The judge in this instance detailed his reasoning for denying Buckley's motion for a mistrial, and Buckley offered no proof that the jurors saw Smith in leg chains. See also Davenport v. State, 662 So.2d 629, 632-33 (Miss.1995); Wiley v. State, 582 So.2d 1008, 1014 (Miss.1991). The act in this instance was unintentional and coincidental, and thus constituted mere harmless error. ¶ 11. Buckley also objects to the questioning by prosecutors concerning Smith's possible gang affiliation and his previous whereabouts when testimony was being taken for the trial. Buckley's objection to questioning was sustained by the judge, who also instructed the jury to disregard the question and any inferences flowing therefrom. The jurors agreed they could abide by the instruction. Buckley moved for a mistrial, but his motion was denied. Buckley does not expound upon this contention of error nor does he cite any authority specifically supporting his position. Based upon the circumstances and actions of the judge, he did not abuse his discretion in denying Buckley's motion for a mistrial.