Opinion ID: 1098782
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Other Issues in Argument III

Text: Defendant next makes reference to assignment fifteen which is based on a defense objection at trial during the cross-examination on the predicate relative to the issue of voluntariness of defendant's statement. The defense objected and later moved for a mistrial due to the following question by the state: Q. That was when you were arrested? A. No. I was arrested when I was taken from the Top of the Duke Motel. Q. What were you arrested for there? MR. MERRITT: Objection, Your Honor. THE WITNESS: I have no idea. THE COURT: Wait. MR. CAPITELLI: They opened the door, Your Honor. I objected to that. There was only two questions THE COURT: No, no, don't say any more. I'm sustaining the objection. MR. LAWRENCE: Your Honor, we would like to reserve our right for further objection. The defendant claims this question constituted reversible error since it had made reference to other crimes. The record reveals that the state's question was not answered in a manner that was prejudicial to the defendant. The trial court sustained the objection, and thereby excluded any prejudicial statements from reaching the jury. The question, in itself, did not indicate to the jury that the defendant had committed another crime within the meaning of La.C.Cr.P. art. 770. In the absence of a showing of prejudice the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the request for the drastic remedy of a mistrial. Defendant next assigns error (No. 18) to the trial court's ruling which denied the defense request to call defendant's mother to testify on the predicate relative to the admissibility of the confessions. It must be noted that the defense was allowed to call the defendant's mother to the stand during the presentation of the defense case-in-chief. The court's refusal to allow defendant's mother to testify during the predicate on the confession is apparently in conformity with the normal order of trial. La. C.Cr.P. art. 765. The defendant has not established any substantial prejudice from his inability to call the defendant's mother during the predicate on the confession. Defendant's arguments under these assignments of error are without merit.