Opinion ID: 1855522
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the circuit court erred in denying the defendant's motion for mistrial based upon the prosecution's interjections of opinion in their opening statement.

Text: ¶ 15. Alexander contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial when the prosecutors told the jury, during opening statements, that the sheriff thought he knew who committed the crime and that he, the prosecutor, believed that the sheriff was right. Alexander objected when this statement was made. The trial court sustained the objection and instructed the jury as follows: The jury will disregard the last comment by the prosecutor. You will not decide the case ... based on opinion but from the evidence. Alexander's motion for a mistrial was overruled. ¶ 16. On appeal, Alexander, without citation to authority, states that, The court's admonition to the jury regarding the prosecutor's comment was not sufficient to remove the taint because the prosecutor was addressing the jury as a representative of the State of Mississippi and as a figure of authority in Panola County. The great weight of authority in this State is contrary to Alexander's argument. ¶ 17. In Turner v. State, 721 So.2d 642 (Miss.1998), the prosecutor made a comment in his opening statement that drew an objection from the defendant. The trial court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard the comment. In rejecting the defendant's argument that a mistrial should have been granted, we quoted from McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130, 135 (Miss.1987), in stating that, [c]onsistent with the authority cited above, there is no error where, as here, the trial judge sustains a seasonable objection, instructing the jury to disregard. Turner, 721 So.2d at 645. Consequently, we concluded that the trial court's actions dissipated any taint of prejudice to Turner. Id. at 645. ¶ 18. An analogous situation was considered in Crenshaw v. State, 520 So.2d 131, 134 (Miss.1988), where an objection was sustained and the jury was instructed to disregard the objectionable matter. We reiterated that this Court has continuously recognized a presumption that jurors follow the instructions of the trial court so as to dissipate any prejudicial effect. See also Swindle v. State, 502 So.2d 652, 656 (Miss.1987). Alexander has not shown that the sustaining of his objection and the instructing of the jury in this case were insufficient remedies to cure any problem caused by the prosecutor's comment. His argument accordingly fails.