Opinion ID: 2087166
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: During the testimony of Police Officer Thomas Papadakis, the following exchange between the Prosecutor and the witness occurred: Q. After taking Mr. Skinner's formal statement, Detective what, if anything else, did you do with regards to this particular incident? A. I had showed him some photographs of Gary Police mug shots just to see  At this point Defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial, which motion the trial court denied. The jury was then admonished to disregard the above question and answer. Defendant assigns as reversible error the trial court's denial of the mistrial motion, arguing that the reference to mug shots was so prejudicial that it could not be corrected by the court's admonishment. He relies primarily upon Miller v. State, (1982) Ind., 436 N.E.2d 1113 and Fox v. State, (1980) Ind. App., 399 N.E.2d 827; however, both cases are readily distinguishable from the one at bar. In Miller, this Court reversed a rape conviction because of two evidentiary harpoons which were deliberately thrust and, in the context of the case had a very high potential for influencing the verdict[.] Miller, 436 N.E.2d at 1113. One of those evidentiary harpoons occurred when the State introduced a photograph of the appellant which was obviously a police photograph and which the prosecutrix identified as a photograph she had selected from an array she had been shown by the police. In the case at bar, however, no photograph of Defendant was introduced, and, in fact, the police officer said nothing which would indicate to the jury that Defendant's photograph was in police files. It is common knowledge that routine police investigation involves the display of police photographs which are on file. In Fox, a police officer stated that the victim of the crime had looked through the police mug files and that he, the police officer, could identify the photograph chosen by the victim from the mug file which had been brought into the courtroom and placed in front of the officer. The Court of Appeals stated that in some cases it may be reversible error for the prosecutor to refer to police mug files or mug shots, and in that case held that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to strike the improper evidence and admonish the jury. In the case at bar, however, the trial court did admonish the jury to disregard the statement by the police officer. At most, the Officer's statement might have indicated to the jury that Defendant had had some prior police involvement. The damage, then, is the knowledge that Defendant had engaged in or was suspected of having engaged in other illegal conduct. However, by his own admission, Defendant was, and had been, engaged in the illegal sale of drugs. Under the circumstances of this case, Defendant has failed to show that he was harmed by the Officer's reference to mug shots. See Jackson v. State, (1984) Ind., 462 N.E.2d 63, 68, and cases cited therein.