Opinion ID: 1281427
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Motions for Mistrial Alleging Introduction of Prior Bad Acts

Text: During the course of the trial, Hardison made two motions for mistrial alleging that the State had improperly introduced evidence of prior bad acts. In Manning v. Warden, 99 Nev. 82, 659 P.2d 847 (1983), we noted that the test for determining a reference to criminal history is whether `a juror could reasonably infer from the facts presented that the accused had engaged in prior criminal activity.' 99 Nev. at 86, 659 P.2d at 850. One of Hardison's motions for mistrial was based on Officer Thompson's statement that he knew that Hardison's street nickname was Noochie. Hardison argues that Thompson's statement was an improper reference to Hardison's criminal record. Although the officer's testimony concerning Hardison's street name was inappropriate and perhaps suggestive of a criminal background, the trial judge correctly denied the motion for mistrial because any error in admitting the testimony was manifestly harmless in the face of overwhelming evidence of Hardison's guilt. Hardison's other motion for mistrial concerned Willie Lockett's statement that he had met Hardison in the joint. This statement was not proper since it probably suggested to the jury that ]Hardison had a criminal record. However, a number of factors lead us to conclude that the motion for mistrial was properly denied. First, this information was not sought by the State but was simply Lockett's response to the question, How long have you known the defendant? Second, upon defense counsel's objection to Lockett's reply, the judge immediately instructed the jury, Ladies and Gentlemen, the indication as to where this witness met Mr. Hardison is not relevant or material and should be disregarded by you, and I'm instructing you to disregard it and give it no weight whatsoever. Third, any prejudicial effect was minimized by the fact that there was no mention as to whether there had been one or more previous offenses or what the nature of the offense or offenses were. Fourth, in light of the overwhelming evidence of Hardison's guilt, [1] we are convinced that Lockett's improper comment was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Manning v. Warden, supra, 99 Nev. at 87, 659 P.2d at 850.