Opinion ID: 1144069
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether an Inadvertent Remark by a State Witness Was a Reversible Error?

Text: At trial during direct examination, the following exchange occurred between the prosecutor and Ron Cooley, an investigator for the Jackson County Sheriff's Department: Q... . Were you present when [Davis] was arrested on his indictment charging him with a crime? A. Yes, sir, I was. Q. Okay. Would you tell us a little bit about what happened at the arrest? A. The subject was found in the area of the King Williams Hotel, inside. Officer Bobby Johnson and myself were there. We brought him outside, did the procedures of informing him of the indictments  At that point, Davis objected and asked that the jury be excused. Judge Lockard excused the jury. Outside the jury's presence, Davis complained that the witness' pluralization of the word, indictment, constituted other-crimes evidence. The introduction of such evidence, Davis premised, should result in a mistrial. The judge responded that: There is no question he [the witness] said he arrested [Davis], he was informing him of the indictments. At this point there's been no emphasis made of other crimes. He simply said he informed him of indictments and was proceeding to follow the usual procedure... . I don't think it's gone far enough to advise the jury of any other crimes. But I will caution both the State and witness, do not mention any other crimes. But I'll overrule the motion [for a mistrial] at this time. Davis now contends that a mistrial should have been declared, (citing cases in which this Court held that the introduction of other-crimes evidence constituted reversible error). Tobias v. State, 472 So.2d 398 (Miss. 1985) (see other cases cited therein). The State counters that the single, unsolicited, and obviously inadvertent pluralization of the word, indictment, hardly compares with the other-crimes evidence which was erroneously introduced in the cases cited by Davis. For example, in Massey v. State, this Court reversed and remanded because the State placed before the jury a mass of testimony blackening the character of appellant and designed to show his guilt of other and former misconduct. 393 So.2d 472, 475 (Miss. 1981) (emphasis added). The State contends that the facts of the case sub judice are more aligned with the following cases in which this Court declined to cite the error as reversible. For example, in Branch v. State, this Court opined: Branch further contends that he was prejudiced by the victim's testimony that she was taken to a lineup for us to identify which one we thought was the suspect or the . Branch contends that her use of the plural pronoun indicated to the jury that several rape victims had been asked to identify him. He argues that this statement was immaterial and inflammatory, and contends that the judge should have sustained his motion for a mistrial. We disagree. The victim's remarks were evidently inadvertent, and the court instructed her to confine her testimony to her own activities. She made no reference to other rape victims, but merely said We instead of I. Ordinarily, when we have reversed cases because of inflammatory testimony, we have noted a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct as well as clear prejudice to the defendant. See e.g., Tudor v. State, 299 So.2d 682, 685-86 (Miss. 1974). Here, the witness' remarks were totally inadvertent, and we find no indication that they could have prejudiced the defendant. 347 So.2d 957, 959 (Miss. 1977). And in Watson v. State , a witness testified that the defendant was just telling me he was out of jail... . This Court, declining to reverse, held that the answer was unresponsive to the question and there was no purposeful effort or intent on the part of the State to elicit such information from the witness. 521 So.2d 1290, 1294 (Miss. 1988). See also Anderson v. State, 285 So.2d 748, 752 (Miss. 1973) (We ... conclude that the inadvertent reference to another crime was not reversible error.).
Applying the law to the facts of the case sub judice, this Court declines to reverse. Accord Watson, 521 So.2d at 1294; Branch, 347 So.2d at 959; Anderson, 285 So.2d at 752. The witness' pluralization of the word, indictment, was an isolated, inadvertent reference to other crimes which should be deemed without substantial prejudice to the right of appellant to a fair trial. Massey, 393 So.2d at 475. The assignment is without merit.