Opinion ID: 1702542
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying baine a mistrial after the prosecution elicited inadmissible, improper, and highly prejudicial evidence while examining witness anita reginelli?

Text: Prior to trial, Baine moved for an order to suppress the testimony of Anita Reginelli, a social worker who had interviewed W.V. In arguing his motion, Baine asserted that the prosecution intended to use Reginelli's testimony to indirectly prove the truth of the matters asserted by W.V. to the witness. The trial court ruled that Reginelli could not testify as to the content of the victim's out-of-court statements. However, the court denied Baine's motion to suppress after receiving assurances from the prosecution that Reginelli's testimony would be used only to illustrate a rational progression in the investigation. During direct examination, Reginelli testified generally concerning how she became involved in the case and described W.V.'s demeanor during their interview. She also indicated that she had referred the V's to a mental health counselor. At this point, the transcript reveals the following: Q [BY PROSECUTOR]: How did you classify, Ms. Reginelli, this report? How did you classify that in your office? A. According to our policy, we considered it a substantiated sexual abuse. Q. What is your policy? BY MS. WEBSTER [COUNSEL FOR DEFENSE]: To which we would object, your Honor. May we approach the bench? BY THE COURT: Yes, you certainly may. (WHEREUPON, ALL COUNSEL FOR BOTH PARTIES APPROACH THE BENCH FOR A CONFERENCE OUT OF THE HEARING OF THE COURT REPORTER.) BY THE COURT: Motion denied. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you will disregard that last question and answer. Do each of you tell me you can do that? It was improper, what her conclusion or opinion was. It is not admissible in this case. Can you follow the Court's instruction in this regard and disregard that? All of you tell me you can and will? (jurors nodding heads up and down) All right, thank you. During a subsequent conference in chambers, the trial judge noted on the record that the defense had moved for a mistrial upon coming to the bench and that the motion had been overruled. His mention of a motion denied immediately before giving the jury an instruction to disregard apparently referred to the off-record motion for mistrial. Baine contends on appeal that the trial court should have granted his motion for a mistrial. He notes that the file classification represented an expression of opinion and that such an opinion was inadmissible since Reginelli was not qualified as an expert. He further observes that the opinion was based on the hearsay which the court had ruled inadmissible at the suppression hearing. By eliciting this indirect hearsay, Baine asserts, the prosecution flagrantly disregarded the rulings of the trial court and placed evidence before the jury which was inflammatory and highly prejudicial. First, there is no indication that the prosecution's question constituted flagrant disregard for the trial court's prior ruling that the state could not introduce hearsay through Reginelli's testimony. To the extent the file classification was based on what W.V. told Reginelli, its disclosure did indeed constitute inadmissible hearsay, albeit indirect. Since the hearsay was indirect, however, it is entirely possible that the prosecutor elicited the testimony without appreciating its character. If so, the state's violation of the prior ruling would have been inadvertent, not flagrant. The record contains nothing to support Baine's allegation of prosecutorial impropriety. Secondly, it is clear from the record that the trial judge implicitly sustained the objection to Reginelli's improper testimony, instructed the jury to disregard it, and polled the jury to insure compliance with his instruction. This Court has repeatedly and consistently held that such action is sufficient to remove any prejudice resulting from the improper testimony. See Dennis v. State, 555 So.2d 679, 682-83 (Miss. 1989) (improper speculative testimony rendered non-prejudicial when trial court sustained objection and instructed jury to disregard it); Wright v. State, 540 So.2d 1, 4 (Miss. 1989) (Absent unusual circumstances, where objection is sustained to improper questioning or testimony, and the jury is admonished to disregard the question or testimony, we will not find error); Marks v. State, 532 So.2d 976, 982 (Miss. 1988) (refusal to grant mistrial was proper where trial court sustained objection and instructed jury to disregard improper testimony); see also Smith v. State, 530 So.2d 155, 161 (Miss. 1988); Wetz v. State, 503 So.2d 803, 810 (Miss. 1987); West v. State, 485 So.2d 681, 689-90 (Miss. 1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 983, 107 S.Ct. 570, 93 L.Ed.2d 574 (1986); McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130, 135 (Miss. 1987); Stringer v. State, 477 So.2d 1335 (Miss. 1985); Johnson v. State, 475 So.2d 1136, 1142 (Miss. 1985); Sand v. State, 467 So.2d 907 (Miss. 1985); Fairley v. State, 467 So.2d 894 (Miss.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 855, 106 S.Ct. 160, 88 L.Ed.2d 133 (1985); May v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 783 (Miss. 1984); Herron v. State, 287 So.2d 759, 766 (Miss.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 972, 94 S.Ct. 3179, 41 L.Ed.2d 1144 (1974). The jury is presumed to have followed the court's instruction. Reynolds v. State, 585 So.2d 753, 755 (Miss. 1991); Crenshaw v. State, 520 So.2d 131 (Miss. 1988); McFee, 511 So.2d at 135; Johnson, 475 So.2d at 1142; Harmon v. State, 453 So.2d 710 (Miss. 1984). Of course, if the inadmissible testimony is so damaging that its effect upon the jury could not be adequately tempered by admonition or instruction, the trial court should grant a mistrial. Reynolds, 585 So.2d at 755; Davis v. State, 530 So.2d 694, 697 (Miss. 1988). The trial judge, however, is in the best position to determine if a remark is truly prejudicial, [and] is given considerable discretion to determine whether a remark creates irreparable prejudice necessitating a mistrial. Where the remark creates no irreparable prejudice, then the trial court should admonish the jury to disregard the improper remark. Roundtree v. State, 568 So.2d 1173, 1177 (Miss. 1990). Reynolds, 585 So.2d at 755. The court below determined that an admonition would be sufficient to remove the prejudice of Reginelli's improper testimony, and nothing in the record indicates that the court abused its discretion in so choosing. Accordingly, Baine's assignment of error has no merit.