Opinion ID: 2507070
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the appellant's motion for a mistrial?

Text: [¶ 21] We review claimed error in the denial of a motion for mistrial for abuse of discretion. Martin v. State, 2007 WY 2, ¶ 11, 149 P.3d 707, 710 (Wyo.2007). The decision [whether to grant a mistrial] is necessarily a discretionary one because a trial court is in a better position than a reviewing court to assess the potential for prejudicial impact. [ Ramirez v. State, 739 P.2d 1214, 1219 (Wyo.1987).] A trial court abuses its discretion when it could not have reasonably concluded as it did. Thomas [ v. State, 2006 WY 34], ¶ 10, 131 P.3d [348], 352 [(Wyo.2006)]. Reasonably means sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances. Id. Absent a clear abuse of discretion causing prejudice to the defendant, a decision to deny a motion for mistrial will not be reversed. Allen v. State, 2002 WY 48, ¶ 75, 43 P.3d 551, 575 (Wyo. 2002). Id., 2007 WY 2, ¶ 19, 149 P.3d at 712. [¶ 22] The motion for mistrial in this case was made in chambers after the State's initial closing argument. During that closing argument, the following exchange occurred: [PROSECUTOR]: Not only do both psychiatrists give  and remember it's their burden of proof here. They put on two psychiatrists both that say he doesn't meet that standard, and yet they want you to find him not guilty and walk him because he has  [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I would object. [PROSECUTOR]:  a problem with mental illness. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I would object to the comment about walking him. That goes to punishment and it's totally inappropriate. [PROSECUTOR]: I'll rephrase, Your Honor. THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. Go ahead. [¶ 23] The district court called a recess after the State finished its argument, and counsel went into chambers. Defense counsel then moved for a mistrial on the ground that the prosecutor's comment about walking the defendant was misleading and inappropriate, and especially damaging in view of discussions during voir dire about there not being any consequences for a mental illness conviction. The district court denied the motion for a mistrial, but agreed to, and did, admonish the jury as follows before defense counsel began his closing argument: THE COURT:. . . . Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, during the State's final argument, there was a singular objection to the State's presentation. There was an objection to a comment that was made in connection with that final argument, and I would remind the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that the Court did sustain the objection. And that means that the jury should disregard that portion of the State's argument and the comment to which the objection was sustained. I would also advise the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as I did in the instructions in this case, that the question of possible punishment of the defendant is of no concern to the jury and should not in any sense enter into or influence your deliberations. So please keep that in mind. And I would emphasize that in the context of the objection that was sustained in this matter. [¶ 24] We have frequently applied the abuse of discretion standard in cases involving motions for mistrial based upon alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument. A sampling of those cases reflects the tenet that [g]ranting a mistrial is an extreme and drastic remedy that should be resorted to only in the face of an error so prejudicial that justice could not be served by proceeding with trial. Cazier v. State, 2006 WY 153, ¶ 16, 148 P.3d 23, 29 (Wyo. 2006) (quoting Allen v. State, 2002 WY 48, ¶ 75, 43 P.3d 551, 575 (Wyo.2002)). See Sanchez v. State, 2002 WY 31, ¶ 20, 41 P.3d 531, 536 (Wyo.2002) (denial of mistrial motion affirmed where improper statement not unduly prejudicial and curative instruction given); Marquez v. State, 12 P.3d 711, 718 (Wyo. 2000) (denial of mistrial motion affirmed where isolated and brief improper statement did not make fair trial impossible, objection was sustained, and amount of direct evidence made conviction likely at any rate); Wolfe v. State, 998 P.2d 385, 389 (Wyo.2000) (denial of mistrial motion affirmed where brief incident of prosecutorial emotion during closing argument was not prejudicial, in context of entire argument and overwhelming evidence of guilt); Miller v. State, 955 P.2d 892, 898 (Wyo.1998) (denial of mistrial motion affirmed where any possible prejudice that may have resulted from a questionably improper comment was cured by a cautionary instruction); DeSersa v. State, 729 P.2d 662, 666 (Wyo.1986) (denial of mistrial motion affirmed where prosecutor's statement in closing argument had potential of attempting to shift burden of proof, but possible error averted by district court's curative instruction). [4] [¶ 25] Having reviewed the transcript of the trial, and considering the prosecutor's single comment in the context of all the testimony and the entire closing arguments, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motion for a mistrial. While the prosecutor's suggestion that the appellant would walk if found not guilty by reason of mental illness was improper, the error was promptly corrected by a sustained objection and a curative instruction. Given the totality of the circumstances then existing, including the nature and amount of the evidence, the well-instructed jury, the brief single-word misconduct, and the immediate curative action taken by the district court, the drastic remedy of mistrial was not appropriate. Counsels' closing arguments take up 72 pages of transcript. The entire trial transcript is 1358 pages in length. In the midst of all this, it is highly unlikely that the prosecutor's misuse of a single word affected the outcome of the trial, especially where the jury was contemporaneously instructed to ignore the word, and where the written instructions told the jury that statements made by counsel in argument were not evidence.