Opinion ID: 2325668
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: criminal record

Text: The defendant also claims that his right to a fair trial was destroyed when, during her testimony, Lucille stated that he had once served time. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for mistrial, struck the testimony, and cautioned the jury to disregard the statement. The defendant claims nevertheless that these actions of the trial court could not have removed the prejudicial effect of her statement. The general principle is that a mistrial should be granted only as a result of some occurrence upon the trial of such a character that it is apparent to the court that because of it a party cannot have a fair trial. State v. Turcio, 178 Conn. 116, 143, 422 A.2d 749 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1013, 100 S. Ct. 661, 62 L. Ed. 2d 642 (1980). Because of the trial court's broad discretion in passing on motions for mistrial and because of the immediate curative instruction given by the court, we can not conclude that the denial of the motion constituted an abuse of discretion in this case. See State v. Gooch, 186 Conn. 17, 25, 438 A.2d 867 (1982).