Opinion ID: 1919806
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the circuit court erred in its denial of appellants' motions for a mistrial as a matter of fact and a matter of law?

Text: Appellants complain that two separate aspects of the trial caused irreparable injury to their defense entitling them to a mistrial. The first incident involved testimony allegedly revealing prior bad conduct by the appellants. This information was elicited from the prosecution witness, Carlos Smith, in the following exchange: Q. I hand you what's been marked state's identification 2 and ask you if that's similar to the weapon. A. Yes, ma'am. Q. I also hand you what's been marked state's identification 1. Is that similar to the weapon that you saw the defendant Gossett with? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Based on what you observed at the club, what had [Hunter] done to either of the defendants? A. Well, I just know of  I know a week later  [Hunter] got a friend, Al Gerone  they had shot at him. That's all. Appellants contend that the testimony revealed prior criminal activity involving a shooting so similar to the crimes for which they were being charged that its mention denied them a fair trial. They argue that the subsequent admonition by the judge to disregard Smith's unsubstantiated comments was insufficient to cure the harm. The trial court must declare a mistrial when there is an error in the proceedings resulting in substantial and irreparable prejudice to the defendant's case. Miss.Unif. Crim.R.Cir.Ct.Prac. 5.15. The trial judge is permitted considerable discretion in determining whether a mistrial is warranted since the judge is best positioned for measuring the prejudicial effect. Roundtree v. State, 568 So.2d 1173, 1178 (Miss. 1990). When the trial judge determines that the error does not reach the level of prejudice warranting a mistrial, the judge should admonish the jury to disregard the impropriety in order to cure its prejudicial effect. Perkins v. State, 600 So.2d 938, 941 (Miss. 1992); Estes v. State, 533 So.2d 437, 439 (Miss. 1988). Evidence of past crimes not resulting in a conviction is generally not admissible. Sanders v. State, 586 So.2d 792, 797 (Miss. 1991); Lightsey v. State, 493 So.2d 375, 379 (Miss. 1986). The trial judge in the case at hand properly responded to Smith's inadmissible testimony and appropriately instructed the jury that it should disregard the testimony regarding the prior conduct of the victim. We conclude that this admonition cured any harm which may have been inflicted on the defendants' defense. In Bullock v. State, 391 So.2d 601, 609 (Miss. 1981), this Court concluded that the exposure of similar evidence regarding prior bad conduct did not warrant a mistrial where the testimony of the witness responsible for revealing the inadmissible evidence was unresponsive to the State's question, the judge admonished the jury to ignore the testimony, and the jurors subsequently each indicated that they would disregard the testimony. A similar chain of events ensued in the case at hand. First, the witness' statement was completely unresponsive to the prosecution's question. It is difficult to make sense of the response provided by the witness as it was answered completely out of context. Secondly, the trial judge admonished the jury explaining that Smith's answer should be disregarded because it was irrelevant to the case at hand. Finally, the trial judge followed his admonition with an inquiry as to whether each individual juror could disregard the testimony regarding the prior conduct. Each individual juror responded affirmatively. We find that under these particular circumstances, the trial judge properly denied the request for a mistrial. The defendants also claim they were entitled to a mistrial on the grounds that prosecution witness, Officer Hollis, commented on the defendants' refusal to make a statement after being arrested. The defendants' complaint stems from the following exchange: Q. Did you transport the defendants back to the police department in Leland? A. Yes. Officer Gregg read them their rights in my presence. All three individuals were charged. Michael Burford was charged by Officer Gregg for accessory to the crime. He read them their rights, their Miranda rights, constitutional rights. They were transported to the police department, again, read them  where their rights was read to them. They refused to give any  Q. That's o'kay. Defendants argue that this testimony violated their rights against self-incrimination as provided by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is never proper to comment on an accused's post- Miranda silence, and normally it will be regarded by this Court as reversible error. Quick v. State, 569 So.2d 1197, 1199 (Miss. 1990). In the case at hand, however, it is arguable whether Officer Hollis' response ever indicated that the defendants refused to make any comments. The prosecutor anticipated an improper response which would have likely alluded to post-arrest silence, but the witness was effectively prevented from actually testifying to such. It is questionable from this standpoint whether any error had occurred as the witness was silenced before actually making an improper comment. If the response had clearly referred to post- Miranda silence, the error would still have been deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence in support of the defendants' guilt in this case. See Austin v. State, 384 So.2d 600, 601 (Miss. 1980) (concluding that district attorney's comments about defendant's silence subsequent to arrest was harmless in light of the overwhelming amount of evidence stacked against defendant). Despite the possible effect of the witness' statement on the jury, the trial judge followed with the admonition that no one has any obligation whatsoever to make a statement to investigating authorities and [they] have a perfect right to decline to make a statement, and also that their silence shall not be held against them and you shall draw no inferences from that fact. The defendants claim that any ambiguity in the testimony concerning post-arrest silence was resolved, and the error intensified, when the judge followed with this admonition. While this instruction may have mistakenly drawn the jurors' attention to the fact that the defendants may have been silent upon arrest, the jury is presumed to have followed the court's instructions. Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 438 n. 6, 103 S.Ct. 843, 853, 74 L.Ed.2d 646 (1983). We cannot conclude, as the defendants suggest, that a proper cautionary instruction submitted to the jury by a trial judge is error in itself. For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court was well within its authority and discretion to deny the defendants' second request for a mistrial.