Opinion ID: 1828411
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cross-Examination of Dr. Sultan

Text: Owen argues that the trial court erred in holding that counsel was not ineffective for not making a motion for mistrial after the State questioned Dr. Sultan about her work for Capital Collateral Regional Counsel (CCRC) and CCRC's mission on behalf of death-row inmates in Florida. [15] The trial court found that counsel was not ineffective because a motion for mistrial would not have been granted. We agree. A mistrial is a device used to halt the proceedings when the error is so prejudicial and fundamental that the expenditure of further time and expense would be wasteful if not futile. Ferguson v. State, 417 So.2d 639, 641 (Fla.1982); see also Smith v. State, 866 So.2d 51 (Fla. 2004) (holding mistrial is required only when error is so prejudicial as to vitiate entire trial). The questions here do not rise to the level of prejudicial error meriting a mistrial. The jury was aware that Dr. Sultan was hired by the defense so it is difficult to see how the discussion of Dr. Sultan's employment by CCRC in other cases would significantly color the jury's assessment of her testimony in this case. Counsel is not ineffective for failing to make a motion that is without merit. See McDonald v. State, 952 So.2d 484, 497 (Fla.2006) (We find no error in the circuit court's conclusion that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion that would not have been granted.).