Opinion ID: 888658
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Did the District Court properly deny Schmidt's request for a mistrial?

Text: ¶ 59 Schmidt argues that the District Court committed structural error when it denied Schmidt's motion for a mistrial after a potential juror uttered a damaging comment about a defense witness. The State inquired during jury selection whether anyone knew a certain defense witness. One of the potential jurors responded by blurting out that the witness had raped her daughter. The District Court reasoned that the witness in question was not on trial. The court further observed that the proposed defense witness could not be impeached by a conviction for rape as it did not pertain to the witness's credibility. ¶ 60 The court reserved Schmidt's right to follow up with individual voir dire if the panelist who had made the remark was in a position to be seated on the jury. The court also gave Schmidt leave to bring the motion again should further voir dire establish some kind of a general bias on the panel based on that one comment. Schmidt did not object to the District Court's resolution of the matter. Counsel for Schmidt enquired during voir dire whether anything had been said regarding any of the witnesses that are going to testify that would cause [any member of the jury] any concern or problem? None of the witnesses mentioned the non-seated panelist's remark. The court reserved Schmidt's right to renew the motion for a mistrial if any evidence of bias surfaced at a later time. None did. The District Court did not abuse its discretion by denying Schmidt's motion for a mistrial.