Opinion ID: 2536189
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Testimony Regarding Uncharged Crime

Text: Bank asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for mistrial when witness Sudie Johnson implicated him in an uncharged crime. We disagree. A ruling on a motion for a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and should be `granted only when it is necessary to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial.' Gore v. State, 784 So.2d 418, 427 (Fla.2001) (quoting Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537, 547 (Fla.1999)). The standard of review applied to a trial court's ruling on a motion for mistrial is abuse of discretion. Floyd v. State, 913 So.2d 564, 576 (Fla.2005). Under the abuse of discretion standard of review, a ruling will be upheld unless the ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Lugo v. State, 2 So.3d 1, 19 (Fla.2008) (quoting Parker v. State, 904 So.2d 370, 379 (Fla.2005)). In this case, Banks' former girlfriend, Sudie Johnson, testified on cross-examination that she did not believe Banks when he first told her that he had murked someone. She thought he was just trying to get more attention from her, and she at first believed that Banks was not capable of such an act. Johnson testified that she was not aware that Banks was having sex with other women. Thereafter, defense counsel asked Johnson whether she changed her mind about Banks and stopped supporting him because you found out that he and Ms. Volum had sex? Johnson responded, No, that wasn't the reason. The reason was from the previousI supported Mr. Banks all the way up until I seen the tape of him stabbing Mr. William Johnson.... Defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial, contending that the other victim was irrelevant and Johnson's response was not an invited comment because he did not ask about other crimes but instead asked about when she changed her mind about Banks. The trial judge denied the defense's motion for mistrial. However, the trial judge gave a curative instruction, and the State agreed not to mention it in its closing argument. The next day the trial judge polled the jury to determine if the jurors could follow his instruction to disregard Johnson's remark regarding the other stabbing. All of the jurors indicated that they would disregard Johnson's remark and base their verdict only on the evidence lawfully before them. Therefore, the trial court acted within its sound discretion when denying the motion for mistrial. We affirm the trial court's denial.