Opinion ID: 2799489
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First Motion for Mistrial

Text: Davis first moved for a mistrial after Branch mentioned that Davis had previously been in prison. Reference to Davis’ prior conviction was likely impermissible under both Neb. Evid. R. 404(2), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404(2) (Cum. Supp. 2014), and 1 State v. Ramirez, 287 Neb. 356, 842 N.W.2d 694 (2014). 2 State v. Sing, 275 Neb. 391, 746 N.W.2d 690 (2008). Nebraska Advance Sheets 834 290 NEBRASKA REPORTS Neb. Evid. R. 403, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 2008). Davis immediately objected to Branch’s testimony, and the district court sustained the objection and admonished the jury to disregard Branch’s previous answer. Davis argues that the prejudice from Branch’s answer could not be cured by admonishment and that the district court abused its discretion in failing to grant a mistrial. [3-5] A mistrial is properly granted in a criminal case where an event occurs during the course of a trial which is of such a nature that its damaging effect cannot be removed by proper admonition or instruction to the jury and thus prevents a fair trial.3 An admonishment of the jury is typically sufficient to cure any prejudice. Error cannot ordinarily be predicated on the failure to grant a mistrial if an objection or motion to strike the improper material is sustained and the jury is admonished to disregard such material.4 Therefore, Davis faces the burden of proving that “he was actually prejudiced” by the alleged errors and not merely that “‘the errors . . . created a possibility of prejudice.’”5 When determining whether an alleged error is so prejudicial as to justify reversal, courts generally consider whether the error, in light of the totality of the record, influenced the outcome of the case.6 [6] In some cases, the damaging effect of an event during trial may be such that it “cannot be removed by proper admonition or instruction to the jury and thus prevents a fair trial.”7 Fleeting, unsolicited remarks by a witness regarding the defend­ant’s previous crimes or time spent in prison, however, are not typically the type of errors that cannot be cured by admonishment. In State v. Lotter,8 we held that an 3 State v. Dixon, 282 Neb. 274, 802 N.W.2d 866 (2011). 4 State v. Robinson, 271 Neb. 698, 715 N.W.2d 531 (2006). 5 Id. at 710, 715 N.W.2d at 546-47. 6 Id. (citing U.S. v. Wheeler, 322 F.3d 823 (5th Cir. 2003); Hester v. BIC Corp., 225 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2000); State v. Wildenberg, 573 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. 1998); State v. Lyons, 951 S.W.2d 584 (Mo. 1997)). 7 State v. Kibbee, 284 Neb. 72, 102, 815 N.W.2d 872, 896 (2012). 8 State v. Lotter, 255 Neb. 456, 586 N.W.2d 591 (1998), modified on denial of rehearing 255 Neb. 889, 587 N.W.2d 673 (1999). Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. DAVIS 835 Cite as 290 Neb. 826 admonishment was sufficient to cure any prejudice when a witness testified that she had previously gone to Missouri to bail the defendant out of jail. In State v. Robinson,9 we determined that a reference to the defendant’s involvement in prior gangrelated crimes, accompanied with an admonishment, did not result in actual prejudice. [7] There is nothing in the record to suggest that Branch’s reference to Davis’ previous time in prison influenced the outcome of the case. Branch’s testimony was cut off before she revealed the crime or the length of the sentence. We must also assume that the jury followed the district court’s instruction and disregarded the answer. “[E]ven though it is hard to ‘unring the bell’ in certain instances, absent evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that a jury followed the instructions given in arriving at its verdict.”10 It cannot be said that this single mention of Davis’ prior conviction influenced the jury to such a degree that the entire outcome of the case is now tainted. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Davis’ motion for mistrial.