Opinion ID: 2509294
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denials of Mistrial Motions for Inflammatory Publicity

Text: Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated his constitutional rights when it denied mistrial motions based on claims of inflammatory publicity. As we have previously explained, a mistrial should be granted `only when `a party's chances of receiving a fair trial have been irreparably damaged.'' [Citation.] We review the trial court's ruling for abuse of discretion and find no such abuse here. ( People v. Burgener (2003) 29 Cal.4th 833, 873, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 747, 62 P.3d 1, quoting People v. Ayala, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 282, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 682, 1 P.3d 3.) The first incident involved a newspaper article that alleged prosecutors had reported that defendant was involved in a plot to kill a prosecution witness, Rauni Campbell. When the article was brought to the trial court's attention, the trial court inquired of the jurors whether they had had any exposure to articles or television reports about the case. None had. At the end of its inquiry, the court, which had previously ordered the jurors not to read newspapers, watch any television reports, or listen to any radio reports about the case, directed them not to read the newspaper at all, except for the sports and classified sections. Defendant engages in the unsupported assertion that the trial court's admonition was either inadequate or ineffective, but we presume the jury followed the court's instructions. ( People v. Harris (1994) 9 Cal.4th 407, 426, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 200, 886 P.2d 1193.) Defendant's second mistrial motion was made on January 9, 1995, after defense counsel learned that the victim's mother had given a television interview in which, according to defense counsel, she demanded the death penalty for defendant. The trial court reminded counsel he had admonished the jury not to watch television reports of the case and offered to poll them. Sometime later in the proceedings, the trial court returned to the subject. The trial court said it would order the Parker family not to discuss the case with anyone, including the press, during the remainder of trial. Regarding the television report, the court stated it was hopeful that the jurors had been abiding by its admonition not to watch television. Defense counsel characterized this as wishful thinking and moved for a mistrial. The trial court admonished the victim's family but did not rule on the motion, nor did defendant press for a ruling. Again, we presume that the jury followed the trial court's admonition to avoid any publicity about the case. Accordingly, even assuming defendant has not forfeited this claim by failing to press for a ruling, we would find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion.