Opinion ID: 1672000
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Effectiveness of Curative Instruction

Text: As his third claim of error, Walker asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial immediately after Detective Watterson, in the course of his testimony as a prosecution witness at trial, referred to Walker's purported commission of an uncharged offense against Ms. Jones. Detective Watterson was called as a prosecution witness at trial, and during his narrative testimony concerning the substance of the police officers' interrogation of Walker, Detective Watterson related to the jury that he had not believed Walker's abduction story and told the defendant that we had serious problems with the story that he was telling us; that I was aware of the fact that he had a sexual assault charge filed against him. The trial court immediately sustained Walker's objection to the testimony, finding there was no question that the prejudicial value far outweighs any probative value. Nevertheless, the trial court denied Walker's motion for a mistrial and, over Walker's objection that it was inadequate, gave the jury the following curative instruction: Members of the jury, I want to give you a special instruction with respect to a statement that was made by this witness. First, is this: No chargesno charges were ever brought against Mr. Walker for sexual battery. And, number two, you are not to believe or assume that Mr. Walker committed any sexual battery. Disregard that last statement. Contrary to Walker's position, the State contends that Detective Watterson's statement during his testimony was admissible and the trial court erred in sustaining Walker's objection and instructing the jury. On appeal, we need not address whether, as the State asserts, Detective Watterson's testimony was admissible as relevant evidence further establishing that Walker and Ms. Jones had a hostile relationship and that Walker had a motive to murder her. Rather, we address only whether the error that occurred when the jury heard this testimony was a harmless one in light of the trial court's curative instruction. In Geralds v. State, 601 So.2d 1157, 1161-62 (Fla.1992), which Walker cites as mandating a new trial here, this Court found a curative instruction ineffective where the improperly elicited testimony established that the defendant had eight prior convictions and the prosecutor subsequently argued that the defendant was a career felon. Unlike Geralds, Detective Watterson's improper testimony here, which the State did not elicit, was an isolated remark which the trial court quickly and effectively cured with an explicit instruction that the jury disregard the comment. Consequently, we reject Walker's claim that a mistrial was warranted and find the error harmless in light of the trial court's explicit curative instruction.