Opinion ID: 2049757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Denial of the motion for a mistrial

Text: During the prosecutor's cross-examination of defense witness Dr. Conrad Wurtz, the following exchange took place: Q Were you made aware that he [defendant] had not slept with his wife for some period of time before their marriage ended? A I was aware that there was marital difficulty, yes. Q Were you aware that there was [sic] sexual problems within the marriage that she had not slept with him for some period of time? A I was not aware of that specific fact, no. After the second question was answered, defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial. Although the motion was denied, the presiding justice, after stating to counsel there was no evidence in the record to support the factual allegation contained in the question, [12] specifically instructed the jury to disregard the disputed questions and answers, and struck them from the record. Additionally, during his instructions to the jury at the close of the evidence, the presiding justice stated: Now there were several times during the course of the trial that evidence was stricken and you were instructed to disregard that evidence. Well, that instruction is simple: disregard the evidence that was stricken and remove it from your consideration as to the facts in this case. The defendant argues the presiding justice committed reversible error by denying the motion for a mistrial. We find no merit in the defendant's contention. The denial of a motion for a mistrial will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Mahoney, 459 A.2d 1073, 1078 (Me.1983); State v. Rheaume, 131 Me. 260, 261, 160 A. 877, 877 (1932). We hold there was no abuse of discretion in the instant case. Dr. Wurtz's testimony was based on interviews and tests designed to measure the defendant's psychological propensity to commit the offense charged. The prosecutor's questions can be viewed as an attempt to test the thoroughness of the witness's knowledge of the defendant's interpersonal difficulties. Moreover, in light of the prompt steps taken by the court to counteract the effect on the jury such questions and answers might have had, we cannot find prejudice resulted from the denial of the motion for a mistrial.