Opinion ID: 348677
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: United States probation officer.

Text: 6 Q. Do you know the defendant, Robert Joseph Pavon? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. The man you know as Robert Joseph Pavon, is he in the courtroom today? 9 A. Yes, he is right behind you. 10 Q. Did Mr. Pavon report to you what his occupation was in March of 1975? 11 A. He reported that he was a salesman for a booking agency. 12 Q. And did he tell you where that booking agency was located? 13 A. It was on Roosevelt Way Northeast, I believe, 5220. 14 Q. And where would that address be in relation to O'Banion's Tavern? 15 A. As I recall, it is right behind O'Banion's. 16 Q. Through your association with Mr. Pavon, did he tell you how much money he was earning legitimately through that business in March and April of 1975? 17 A. He was reporting approximately $300 per month. 18 Q. That would be total income for that period of time? 19 A. That is the way it was reported, as gross income. 20 MR. MEYERSON: I have nothing further. 21 MR. GILLINGHAM: I have no questions. 22 THE COURT: You are excused, sir. 23 (R.T. at 53-54) 24 After the noon recess which immediately followed, Pavon's attorney moved to strike Tucker's testimony on the grounds that it was not relevant and was highly prejudicial because it implied to the jury that Pavon was on probation and thus had a prior criminal record. After Pavon stipulated that he was employed at Good Lookin' Bookin'  and that in March, 1975, he was earning $300 per month, the trial court struck Tucker's testimony and told the jury to disregard it. 1 After all the evidence had been presented, defense counsel moved for a mistrial based on the prejudicial effect of the testimony despite the court's prior ruling and cautionary instruction. That motion was denied. 25 It will be noted that when Tucker took the stand and testified, there was no objection by Pavon's counsel. Thus we can hardly hold that error was committed by the court at that time. It is not error, except in most unusual circumstances, to admit evidence to which no objection is made. Also, it was not error to strike the testimony and tell the jury to disregard it. Short of granting a mistrial, there was nothing else that the judge could do. Thus the only question before us is, was it error to deny the motion for a mistrial?