Opinion ID: 1110661
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the trial court's failure to declare a mistrial for the improper viewing of the videotape was reversible error?

Text: ¶ 18. A videotape of an interview with Karen was shown to the jury. In that videotape, Karen was asked whether she had any knowledge of Smith committing similar offenses with other children. [6] In a discussion outside the jury's presence, it was agreed among the parties that this portion of the videotape would be edited out before the videotape was viewed by the jury. [7] At trial, however, the videotape was played, and that portion had not been edited out. While the question itself was heard by the jury, the tape was stopped before Karen's answer was heard. [8] Defense counsel moved for a mistrial, but that motion was overruled by the trial judge. However, the trial judge did admonish the jury to disregard the question and to refrain from drawing any inferences from it one way or the other. The jury affirmatively agreed to do so. ¶ 19. On appeal, Smith argues he was prejudiced by the unsubstantiated prior bad act question and, therefore, his motion for mistrial should have been granted. He alleges that when the question was posed and defense counsel objected, the jury was clearly informed of what the answer to the question was. As a result, he asserts the trial court's failure to grant the motion for a mistrial was reversible error. ¶ 20. Conversely, the State argues the incident was entirely inadvertent and the tape was stopped before the jury heard the response. Moreover, the State asserts that the trial judge instructed the jury to disregard the objectionable question, in spite of the fact that no answer was heard, and that such an instruction cured any potential prejudice which may have arisen. Finally, the State contends that even if the response had been heard, the trial judge followed the proper remedial steps, such that even then the incident would not have risen to the level of reversible error. ¶ 21. In Mitchell v. State, 539 So.2d 1366, 1372 (Miss.1989), this Court found that under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 404(b) evidence of other sexual relations should be limited to those between the defendant and the particular victim. To do otherwise would be [inconsistent] with the notion that a defendant is on trial for a specific crime and not for generally being a bad person. Id. In this case, however, the issue is whether any such evidence was actually introduced. The trial judge found it was not since Karen's answer to the question was not heard by the jury. As a result, the trial judge overruled defense counsel's motion for a mistrial. Furthermore, the trial judge admonished the jury to disregard the objectionable question, which they affirmatively agreed to do. The trial judge has broad discretion in declaring a mistrial. See Washington v. State, 800 So.2d 1140, 1143 (Miss.2001). When an objection is sustained and a jury is admonished to disregard, an appellate court will not often overturn a trial court's discretionary decision to deny a motion for a mistrial. Lockridge v. State, 768 So.2d 331, 339 (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (citing Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521, 528 (Miss.1996); Wright v. State, 540 So.2d 1, 4 (Miss.1989); Marks v. State, 532 So.2d 976, 982 (Miss.1988)). While a claim of prosecutorial misconduct can be a consideration in determining whether an exceptional situation exists as to justify overturning the trial judge's discretionary decision, this case fails to present such a quandary. The incident at issue amounted to an inadvertent mistake in failing to properly edit the tape, combined with the video equipment malfunctioning. [9] In the end, however, all the jury heard was the question. The trial judge, in exercising his discretion, found that alone was insufficient to justify granting the defendant's motion for mistrial. This Court finds the trial judge properly exercised his discretion, and such discretion ought to be granted deference. Therefore, this issue is without merit.