Opinion ID: 161910
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prosecutorial Reference to Inadmissible Evidence

Text: 21 During the cross-examination of government witness Jorge Avila, defense counsel asked Avila about a prior criminal charge for possession of cocaine. The prosecution objected, stating in the presence of the jury, Your Honor, we object to this unless discussions about cocaine go both ways. XVIII R. at 656. The Caballeros contend that the comment violated the court's tentative ruling excluding evidence of Leonardo Caballero's prior cocaine conviction, and that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to grant a mistrial in response. We review the denial of a motion for a mistrial for an abuse of discretion. Gabaldon, 91 F.3d at 94. 22 To determine whether an improper reference to a defendant's prior conviction requires declaring a mistrial, we consider what effect the error had or reasonably may be taken to have had upon the jury's decision...[and whether it had substantial influence. Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 764-65. We estimate the influence on the jury in the context of all the evidence presented against the Caballeros. United States v. Williams, 923 F.2d 1397, 1401 (10th Cir. 1990). In United States v. Short, 947 F.2d 1445 (10th Cir. 1991), a prosecutor explicitly asked the defendant about a prior drug-related conviction, despite a trial court ruling barring such evidence. 947 F.2d at 1455. In reviewing the denial of a motion for mistrial, this court examined whether the prosecutor's comment substantially influenced the jury's verdict. Id. In view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, the solitary, isolated nature of the prosecutor's remark, and the defense counsel's decision not to seek a limiting instruction or have the statement stricken, we decided that the remark did not substantially influence the verdict. Id. 23 While we certainly do not condone the prosecutor's inappropriate suggestion in this case that discussions about cocaine go both ways, the comment was ambiguous and, at best, merely suggestive and revealed less than did the explicit, conclusive questioning of the prosecutor in Short. Second, we find it unlikely that the prosecutor's single, ambiguous remark substantially influenced the jury in light of the overwhelming evidence presented against the Caballeros. Furthermore, the question asked in Short elicited the defendant's admission to a prior conviction. Here, there was a single remark, directed to the court, and no reply was given. Third, as in Short, the Caballeros' defense counsel did not ask the court to strike the offending remark or issue a limiting jury instruction, though both the prosecution and the court suggested such a course. In summary, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial in the wake of the prosecutor's comment. 24