Opinion ID: 1099739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellants' motion for mistrial when the prosecution asked Doc Caston about statements Crimm allegedly made to his wife.

Text: ś 61. The brothers next complain that the trial court committed reversible error when it denied a motion for mistrial pertaining to the prosecution's question concerning Margaret Berry's statement. The appropriate standard of review is outlined in the preceding issue. ś 62. During cross-examination of Doc, the following exchange occurred: Q. Any you say your brother Harold [Crimm] was in the bar and never went out there [to the parking lot]? A. As I know of I said. Q. Well, why would he have told Margaret Berry that he did, and that he took him [Pool] to the river? A. I don't know. ś 63. Following this questioning, a bench conference ensued. Defense counsel requested a mistrial based on a court order prohibiting the State from mentioning any statements by Crimm's wife, Margaret Berry (Berry). The court denied the motion for mistrial based on the fact that Berry's actual statement was not given by the prosecution. ś 64. The State argues that the brothers did not request the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard the matter, consequently, the mistrial issue is precluded from review. The brothers assert that the trial court's instruction to the prosecution, to not go into any of Berry's statements, is the functional equivalent of telling the jury to disregard the evidence. However, the record reflects that the judge's limitation on questioning was given during the bench conference and not to the jury. Nevertheless, the brothers' failure to request an admonishment bars review of the motion for mistrial. When the trial court sustains an objection and admonishes the jury to disregard the statement, there is usually no error, absent unusual circumstances. Pulphus v. State, 782 So.2d at 1223 citing Spann v. State, 771 So.2d at 890. In Gardner v. State, 455 So.2d 796, 800 (Miss.1984), the defendant alleged that the trial court erred by denying a motion for mistrial, and this Court held: When the prosecutor asked the question, defense counsel objected and the objection was sustained by the trial court. Defense counsel then made a motion for a mistrial, which was overruled. Since the trial judge sustained the first objection, no prejudice resulted to the appellant from the question. This court has held that where an objection to a question is sustained and no request is made that the jury be instructed to disregard the question, there is no error. Reddix v. State, 381 So.2d 999 (Miss.1980); Clanton v. State, 279 So.2d 599 (Miss. 1973). ś 65. Likewise, in McGowan v. State, 706 So.2d 231, 243 (Miss.1997), defense counsel made an objection which was sustained, and the motion for mistrial was overruled. The defense, however, failed to request the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard the prosecution's statement. Id. This Court held that `[i]t is the rule in this State that where an objection is sustained, and no request is made that the jury be told to disregard the objectionable matter, there is no error.' Id. (quoting Marks v. State, 532 So.2d 976, 981 (Miss.1988)). Accordingly, this issue is without merit.