Opinion ID: 1485008
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The State charges McNair; and the trial judge declares a mistrial.

Text: On March 30, 2008, police arrested McNair and charged him with Third Degree Burglary, Theft, Offensive Touching, and Criminal Mischief. A jury failed to reach a verdict after trial, and the trial judge declared a mistrial. The trial judge scheduled a new trial, and the second jury found McNair guilty on all four counts. Before and during McNair's second trial, McNair raised several issues with the trial judge.
McNair objected to both the admission of the photograph he expected had served as a basis for Silva recognizing him, as well as to Silva's testimony concerning the location of and the frequency that Silva viewed the photograph. McNair argued that D.R.E. 404(b) prohibited Silva's testimony, because it would indicate to the jury that McNair had previously committed crimes in the garage. The trial judge noted that the photograph could potentially prejudice McNair, but ruled that its probative value far outweighed the potential for prejudice. The trial judge accordingly admitted a cropped version of the photograph that contained no writing that suggested McNair's earlier criminal acts. The trial judge also attempted to sanitize the accompanying testimony by instructing the State that Silva could testify that he had seen the photograph several times, but that he could not testify to where he had seen it.
Before the second trial, McNair requested a missing evidence instruction [1] regarding the State's failure to collect and preserve the surveillance videotape. At a hearing on the issue, Walker testified on voir dire that he could not recall viewing the videotape. But Walker did recall being told that there was nothing useful, because the footage showed people running in the garage stairwell and was blurry. Silva, who remembered watching the videotape with Walker, testified that the footage was not very good and that neither he, nor Walker, could identify the perpetrator from the video. Based on these testimonies, the trial judge held that the videotape had no evidentiary value, and declined to instruct the jury to assume that the missing videotape would have tended to prove that McNair was not guilty.
At trial, after being prompted by Silva's response to a question on direct examination, McNair moved for a mistrial. During Silva's direct-examination, the following exchange occurred: Q. And how do you know [McNair]? A. Um Q. Have you ever seen a photograph of him before? A. Yes, I have. Q. How many times have you seen a photograph? A. Daily, when I was at work. McNair moved for a mistrial based on Silva having testified to the exact circumstance the trial judge had precluded. The trial judge denied McNair's motion for a mistrial, reasoning that she ruled out of an abundance of caution and Silva's statement did not rise to the level of prejudice requiring a mistrial. In any event, the trial judge gave a curative instruction to the jury to disregard the last statement that the witness made as to where and in what manner the saw the photograph.