Opinion ID: 437355
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statements Concerning Marijuana Residue

Text: 42 Before trial, the District Judge granted a motion in limine, suppressing evidence of the marijuana residue found in Bain and Davis's cabin. The prosecutor (Mr. Noto) instructed his witnesses not to mention the residue; and during trial he made no reference to the evidence. When Officer Alaimo took the stand, however, he accidentally mentioned the marijuana: 43 Q [by Mr. Noto]: Did you tell your partner where you found the Quaaludes? 44 A: Yes. 45 Q: What did you do after that? 46 A: He informed me that he had found marijuana residue. 47 Q: No. No. Not what somebody told you. 48 Trial Transcript at 47. 49 The trial court immediately instructed the jury to ignore the remark, id., but the defendants moved for a mistrial. The motion was denied. 50 We affirm the court's ruling. Although Officer Alaimo's testimony certainly violated the pre-trial order, the error was harmless. The potential for prejudice was muted by the court's immediate curative instruction. See United States v. Smith, 635 F.2d 411, 412-13 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. Sklaroff, 552 F.2d 1156, 1162 (5th Cir.1977). The prosecutor did not mention the evidence again. On the contrary, there was only one reference to the marijuana and that reference was neither made nor elicited by the prosecution, but instead resulted from a spontaneous remark made by the witness. Id.; see also United States v. Smith, supra, 635 F.2d at 413. The trial court did not err in denying a mistrial.