Opinion ID: 1058311
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 40

Heading: Testimony of Elfreida Lane

Text: During Elfeida Lane's redirect testimony, the prosecuting attorney asked her if she had ever been through the drive-thru window at Baskin-Robbins with her daughter and appellant. Ms. Lane replied, We did not go through Baskin Robbins, sir. Counsel then attempted to ask another question, and Ms. Lane interrupted and said, that was my daughter that said that not  we did not go through Baskin Robbins. Not to my knowledge. Defense counsel then objected to the hearsay. The State responded that it had not intended to elicit hearsay testimony. The trial court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard that portion of Ms. Lane's testimony and consider it for no purpose. Thereafter, the State asked Ms. Lane if she and a member of her family and appellant had gone through the drive-thru at Baskin-Robbins. After Lane responded that she could not remember doing so, counsel asked if it was possible that, after they dined at Logan's, they went to get ice cream. Ms. Lane stated that she could not remember doing so. At no point during this exchange did defense counsel request a mistrial. Appellant now asserts that the court should have sua sponte granted a mistrial. A mistrial should be declared in a criminal trial only in the event of a manifest necessity that requires such action. State v. Hall, 976 S.W.2d 121, 147 (Tenn.1998) The purpose for declaring a mistrial is to correct damage done to the judicial process when some event has occurred which precludes an impartial verdict. State v. Williams, 929 S.W.2d 385, 388 (Tenn.Crim. App.1996). The determination of whether to grant a mistrial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Smith, 871 S.W.2d 667, 672 (Tenn.1994). The reviewing court should not overturn that decision absent an abuse of discretion. Reid, 91 S.W.3d at 279. Moreover, the burden of establishing the necessity for a mistrial lies with the party seeking it. Williams, 929 S.W.2d at 388. Appellant's counsel did not move for a mistrial based upon the hearsay testimony by Ms. Lane. Moreover, the trial court gave a curative instruction, which the jury is presumed to have followed. Hall, 976 S.W.2d at 148. This issue is without merit.