Opinion ID: 1873695
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidence of the separate and distinct crime of selling hot tickets

Text: Several times during the trial the victim inadvertently referred to the fact that the appellant was selling hot tickets at the stadium. After the second unsolicited reference to hot tickets, the appellant objected and the trial court sustained the objection and asked the jury if they could disregard the remarks. All of the jurors responded affirmatively. The appellant did not ask for a mistrial. [5] Nevertheless, he now contends that these remarks require that he be granted a new trial. Evidence of past crimes not resulting in conviction is generally inadmissible, Lightsey v. State, 493 So.2d 375 (Miss. 1986), and a mistrial in such a case is proper unless it can be said with confidence that the inflammatory material had no harmful effect on the jury. Shoemaker v. State, 502 So.2d 1193, 1195 (Miss. 1987) (citations omitted). This Court has repeatedly held that jurors are presumed to have followed the trial judge's instructions. Walker v. State, 473 So.2d 435 (Miss. 1985). Therefore, even if the unsolicited reference to hot tickets was inflammatory and the failure to ask for a mistrial did not waive the error on appeal, the thorough corrective measures taken by the judge completely cured any prejudice to the appellant.