Opinion ID: 1420721
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the evidence of a previous knife assault

Text: The district attorney asked the prosecuting witness Castro to describe what took place on the night of the assault. The question was: Would you relate  just in your own words  Mr. Castro  what took place? Castro answered, Well, it started about a year before the shooting  actually started. Him and some other men jumped me in some other night club  outside  and they gave me a pretty good beating. He pulled a knife but he didn't get me real good. That was a year before the actual shooting happened. Counsel for the defendant objected, and in proceedings outside the presence of the jury, moved for a mistrial. The district attorney admitted to the court that the answer was unresponsive and as such should be stricken. The court denied the motion for mistrial, but stated it would reserve final ruling until the close of all of the evidence. This testimony was inadmissible as a similar transaction to show intent, design or motive because of its remoteness. It was not ordered stricken; the jury was not instructed to disregard it. When the motion for mistrial was renewed at the close of all of the evidence, the court again denied the motion. Not every volunteered statement which is unresponsive to a question is the basis for a mistrial. However, it was particularly prejudicial in this case because the jury, having this information, could have concluded that Hernandez came to the tavern with the design to shoot Castro with premeditation and deliberation and that the provocation furnished no excuse. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for new trial. MOORE and FRANTZ, JJ., concur.