Opinion ID: 3178705
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The availability to the trial judge of an opportunity to grant a motion for mistrial or to give curative instructions.

Text: 2007 ND 125, ¶ 18, 736 N.W.2d 418. [¶15] The testimony about Anderson’s post-arrest silence was in response to a question from the State and, arguably, was used as substantive evidence of his guilt. However, Detective Fry’s comment was brief, only three words. The State did not refer to his silence at any other time during the trial or in closing arguments. Anderson did not object or move for a mistrial, giving the trial judge no opportunity to grant such motion or give a curative instruction. Whether a curative instruction would have made any difference here is questionable. See State v. Janda , 397 N.W.2d 59, 66 (N.D. 1986) (discussing cases expressing serious reservations about the efficacy of curative instructions). [¶16] Of primary importance is the quantum of evidence indicative of guilt. Anderson does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against him on appeal. It is undisputed that Anderson killed King. There is ample evidence on the record from which the jury could reasonably infer that Anderson did not act in self-defense. Joseph Dekeado testified during trial that Anderson had previously chased King with an axe and threatened to kill him if they ever fought again. According to testimony, Anderson had many opportunities to retire to his room for the night but, instead, he chose to continue engaging in physical altercations with members of his crew. The jury also had an opportunity to view the surveillance footage admitted into evidence showing the incident. [¶17] While we do not condone the State asking Anderson about not making a statement, after reviewing the entire record and considering the relevant factors, we conclude any error in allowing Detective Fry’s brief testimony about Anderson’s post-arrest silence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.