Opinion ID: 1105577
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Reference to Inculpatory Statement in Opening Argument

Text: The defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to declare a mistrial after the state referred to an alleged inculpatory statement during its opening argument, in violation of La.C.Cr.P. art. 767. The record reflects that during his opening argument, the prosecutor stated: You will hear [Atkin's] testimony as to when these two men entered the trailer as to what Lawson Strickland told them he had just done. Vol. 4, p. 849. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial at a bench conference. The trial judge allowed the prosecutor to finish his opening statement and ultimately decided to deny the motion, finding the statement was part of the res gestae of the offense. At the time of trial, La.C.Cr.P. art. 767 provided: The state shall not, in the opening statement, advert in any way to a confession or inculpatory statement made by the defendant. La.Acts 1995, No. 1278 amended the statute by adding unless the statement has been previously ruled admissible. Even at the time of trial, however, a violation of the rule did not automatically require a mistrial. The purpose of the rule is to prevent surprise and to allow adequate time for preparation of the defense, as well as to avoid certain problems that had been attendant to mentioning of confessions or inculpatory statements in the state's opening statement. State v. Parker, 436 So.2d 495, 499 (La.1983); State v. Russell, 416 So.2d 1283, 1288 (La.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 974, 103 S.Ct. 309, 74 L.Ed.2d 288 (1982). In cases where the defendant knows through discovery of the state's intention to introduce the statement and the statement is later properly admitted, the prosecution's premature mention of the statement in its opening statement causes no prejudice to the defendant. State v. Whitmore, 353 So.2d 1286, 1289 (La.1977). Here, the defendant had pre-trial notice of the state's intention to introduce the statements. The trial judge properly admitted the testimony during trial. Thus, the defendant suffered no prejudice from the state's premature mention of his inculpatory statements in its opening statement. The trial judge did not err in denying the defense motion for mistrial.