Opinion ID: 860588
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Improper prosecutor comment

Text: Hoskins argues that the trial judge erred in not granting him a mistrial during cross- examination of the defendant when the prosecutor stated, Well happy birthday, do you realize that you just confessed to capital murder? The trial judge sustained the defendant's objection to the statement and ordered the jury to disregard it, but the judge denied defendant's motion for a mistrial. Hoskins argues on appeal that he was not on trial for capital murder, and that the statement was improper, highly prejudicial, and denied him of his right to a fair trial. It is a settled rule in this state that a mistrial is reserved for those few instances where the court can take no action which would sufficiently cure improper occurrences inside the courtroom. Walker v. State, 671 So.2d 581, 621 (Miss. 1996). In Walker, the court stated: Elementary to all trial proceedings is the proposition that the occurrence of any prejudicially incompetent matter or misconduct before a jury, the damaging effect of which cannot be removed by admonition or instructions, necessitates a mistrial. However it is the well established rule in Mississippi that where a trial judge sustains an objection to testimony interposed by the defense in a criminal case and instructs the jury to disregard it, the remedial acts of the court are usually deemed sufficient to remove any prejudicial effect from the mind of the jurors. The jury is presumed to have followed the directions of the trial judge. Davis v. State, 530 So. 2d 694, 697 (Miss. 1988). Id. While the prosecutor's comment should not have been made, we assume that the jury followed the judge's direction and disregarded the statement. The prejudice against the defendant was cured by the judge's admonishment, and the denial of a mistrial was proper.