Opinion ID: 2294835
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Testimony About Defendant's Probation

Text: Cook argues that the trial justice committed reversible error in failing to pass the case after a witness testified that Cook had been on probation. During its case-in-chief, the state called Patrick, [2] a cohort of Cook, to testify about his participation with Cook concerning the charges relating to the abominable and detestable crimes against nature. Patrick testified that he first met Cook in April 2008, when he was a junior in high school. According to Patrick, their relationship progressed, and he later met with Cook on more than one occasion to engage in sexual activity. At the conclusion of one of these meetings, Cook purchased alcohol for Patrick, which he later consumed, causing him to go to the hospital for alcohol poisoning. Patrick was later kicked out of school because of this alcohol use. Thereafter, Patrick communicated to Cook what had happened to him. At issue is the following dialogue that occurred during direct examination by the state prosecutor in regard to that discussion: [THE PROSECUTOR]: What, if anything, did the defendant tell you or say to you after you told him about what had happened to you? [PATRICK]: He had told me to not mention his name to anyone including the police [because] he was on probation. The trial justice immediately requested a sidebar conference to discuss the preceding testimony. After determining that the remark was included in Patrick's witness statement, the trial justice excused the jury. Cook then moved to pass the case, arguing that he was prejudiced by the remark and that even a cautionary instruction to the jury would be an inadequate remedy. The state objected and asserted that based on the totality of the evidence presented against Cook, the statement about his probation was not sufficiently prejudicial as to deprive    defendant of his due process rights in [his] trial. After hearing arguments from both sides, the trial justice determined that a cautionary instruction would properly cure the offending comment, and he declined to pass the case. He then invited Cook to suggest language to be used in a cautionary instruction to the jury. After a recess, during which counsel for both sides met with the trial justice in his chambers, the parties accepted the trial justice's offer to individually voir dire each member of the jury to determine whether or not they heard what the witness stated in response to the question, [and] if they heard what the witness said, if they can agree to put that out of their mind and not consider that during their deliberations. The trial justice then asked defense counsel whether there was anything else the defense would have the trial justice inquire of the jurors. In response, the defense requested that the trial justice determine whether each juror know[s] what probation is    without telling them[,] to which the trial justice agreed. The trial justice then conducted an individual voir dire of each juror. Of the fifteen jurors questioned, eight indicated they could not recollect the testimony in dispute. Of the seven who remembered to some degree the response of Patrick, six were confident that they could put that testimony out of their minds. After the conclusion of this extensive voir dire, Cook renewed his motion to pass the case. After additional argument from both parties, the trial justice again denied Cook's motion. However, the trial justice did agree with Cook's subsequent request to excuse the single juror who expressed concern as to whether she could disregard defendant's probationary status. After the trial justice brought the remaining jurors back into the courtroom, he struck the offending testimony and gave the following cautionary instruction to the entire panel: Ladies and gentlemen, before [defense counsel] commences his cross-examination of [Patrick], the [c]ourt will instruct all of the jurors to disregard the last answer that was given by [Patrick] to the question posed by [the prosecutor]. The [c]ourt will further order that [the] answer be stricken from the record in this matter; and, once again, the jurors cannot, to the extent that they may    recall what [Patrick] said, cannot use that in any respect during your deliberations in this matter. Finally, at the close of trial, the trial justice further instructed the jury that any testimony that was ordered stricken by the [c]ourt must be entirely disregarded during your deliberations. On appeal, Cook argues that Patrick's testimony about Cook's probation was so detrimental that the individual questioning of the jurors and the cautionary instructions given were not sufficient to dispel the prejudice to the defense. In his argument, Cook refers to how the prosecutor, on direct examination of Patrick, elicited prejudicial testimony that gave an unfair advantage [to] the state[.] Cook also relies on prior case law from this Court involving the reversal of convictions because of overly prejudicial statements made during trial. [3] However, in light of the circumstances of the case before us, defendant's argument is unavailing. In considering a motion to pass a case induced by the unintentional introduction of allegedly damaging testimony at trial, the trial justice must assess the prejudicial impact of the information. State v. Rosario, 14 A.3d 206, 215 (R.I. 2011) (quoting State v. LaPlante, 962 A.2d 63, 70 (R.I.2009)). A statement is sufficiently prejudicial when it is extraneous to the issues before the jury and tends to inflame the passions of the jury. LaPlante, 962 A.2d at 70 (citing State v. Pacheco, 763 A.2d 971, 979 (R.I.2001)). We have held that rather than using some prescribed formula in ascertaining prejudice, potentially prejudicial evidence must be `viewed in the context in which it appeared and in light of the attendant circumstances.' Rosario, 14 A.3d at 215 (quoting LaPlante, 962 A.2d at 70-71). In view of the circumstances surrounding Patrick's errant statement, we hold that his testimony concerning defendant's being on probation was not sufficiently prejudicial to prevent the jury from calmly and dispassionately considering the evidence. Indeed, this Court is satisfied that the trial justice's prompt and deliberate actions following Patrick's testimony sufficiently nullified any prejudicial effects it may have caused. First, after halting the questioning and dismissing the jury, the trial justice invited Cook to suggest language to be used to caution the jury, which Cook later provided. More significantly, the trial justice took the additional precaution to conduct a thorough and searching voir dire of each juror. For each juror who was able to recall Patrick's reference to defendant's probation, the trial justice specifically asked the juror if he or she would be capable of putting that statement out of his or her mind during deliberations. All but one juror assured him that they could do so, and that juror was excused. The trial justice also gave defendant an opportunity to ask each juror any additional questions. Moreover, when the trial resumed, the trial justice struck the offending testimony, cautioned the jury to disregard it, and reemphasized to the jurors that to the extent that they may have recall[ed] what [Patrick] said, the jury could not use the testimony in any respect during [their] deliberations[.] At the end of trial, the trial justice again admonished the jury not to consider any stricken testimony in their deliberations. Unless there is some reason to believe that the jury disregarded the cautionary instructions given by the trial justice, we assume that the jury followed the instructions as given. See State v. Barbosa, 908 A.2d 1000, 1005 (R.I.2006); see also State v. Mendoza, 889 A.2d 153, 159 (R.I.2005). In the case at bar, there is no indication that the jury failed to obey the cautionary instructions. Therefore, considering the trial justice's comprehensive voir dire of the jury, in connection with the timely cautionary instructions to the jury, we find no clear error committed by the trial justice in refusing to pass the case.