Opinion ID: 2180416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proper Denial of Mistrial

Text: Hendricks' next contention on appeal is that his motion for a mistrial was improperly denied. During the testimony of Dover Police Department Detective Todd Case, reference was made to a court notice Detective Case found in Hendricks' hotel room. According to Hendricks, that reference was prejudicial because the jury could infer from it that Hendricks had been charged for criminal conduct on a prior occasion. At Hendricks' trial, Detective Case testified that during the hotel room search he found several pieces of paper bearing Hendricks' name, and that one of the papers was a standard court paper of notice. Hendricks objected to this testimony and moved for a mistrial. The trial judge denied the motion for a mistrial but immediately struck Detective Case's reference to the court papers, and instructed the jury to disregard that statement. A curative instruction is generally sufficient to remedy any prejudice that may result from the jury hearing inadmissible evidence. [10] A trial judge should grant a mistrial only where there is a `manifest necessity' or the `ends of public justice would be otherwise defeated.' [11] This Court reviews the denial of a motion for mistrial for abuse of discretion. [12] Hendricks has not established a manifest necessity for a mistrial. [13] Detective Case neither stated nor implied that the court papers were criminal in nature. Detective Case's reference was vague notwithstanding the prosecutor's instruction not to identify specifically the nature of [the] paperwork. That mere reference to court papers did not automatically create an inference that Hendricks was involved in another criminal proceeding, or subject to other criminal charges. A mistrial is mandated only when there are `no meaningful and practical alternatives' to granting a mistrial. [14] The practical alternative in this case, which was immediately exercised by the trial judge, was to strike Detective Case's comment from the record and to instruct the jury to disregard Detective Case's statement. The trial judge did strike the statement from the record and immediately instructed the jury to disregard the statement. It is presumed that a jury will follow the judge's instruction. [15] Detective Case's comment was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a mistrial. [16] Accordingly, the Superior Court properly exercised its discretion in giving a curative instruction and did not err in denying a mistrial.