Opinion ID: 1952970
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Steps taken to Mitigate Prejudice

Text: After the prosecutor made his remark Bugra objected. The State then withdrew the comment and apologized to the court. In addition, the judge issued a curative instruction. Specifically the court instructed the jury, What the attorneys think is not relevant, and the jury should disregard it. The steps taken to mitigate any error here were sufficient. An objection was made and sustained, the prosecutor withdrew his remark and apologized, and the judge issued a curative instruction. Furthermore during sidebar, when Bugra made his motion for mistrial, the judge asked Bugra if he wanted any further instruction to the jury. Bugra declined, however, because he believed if the jury did not insinuate anything negative from the prosecutor's comment, he did not want to further the damage by drawing more attention through another jury instruction. Thus the State's comment was not so offensive that it was clear to all. In Hunter v. State this Court recently held that in addition to the three part Hughes test we would consider whether the prosecutor's statements are repetitive errors that require reversal because they cast doubt on the integrity of the judicial process. [11] This Court reversed the conviction in Hunter where the prosecutor made numerous improper comments covering nine different categories, the most egregious of which related to defense counsel's role and the reasonable doubt standard. [12] Unlike the prosecutor in Hunter the prosecutor in Bugra's case made only one improper comment. Furthermore this comment was not directed at the role of defense counsel or the reasonable doubt standard but at the fact that Bugra was laughing during closing arguments. Thus Bugra does not find support for his argument from the facts in Hunter. Bugra fails to meet any of the Hughes requirements or the additional requirement set out in Hunter. His claim that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for mistrial is error. This is not a case where a mistrial was a manifest necessity. The evidence against Bugra was convincing and the court indicated on the record the fact that Bugra actually was laughing. The court also issued a curative instruction. Although the prosecutor's comment was improper it does not require reversal.