Opinion ID: 1094701
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: did the trial court err in failing to grant defendant's motion for a mistrial after the jury viewed a television interview given by the district attorney during the course of the trial?

Text: When the trial reconvened on November 19, 1992, the court asked if any of the jurors were exposed to any media coverage of the case. One of the jurors responded, We all saw a little article on T.V. last night. At that point, the judge asked if any of the jurors could not totally disregard what they heard or viewed and when they indicated that they could, he said that he assumed all of the jurors would follow the instructions of the court when he tells them to disregard what they saw or heard. Later, in chambers, Johnson moved for a mistrial. He asked that a subpoena duces tecum be issued for the tape of the news broadcast and that the jury be polled individually as to whether they saw the broadcast in which the district attorney was interviewed. The judge agreed to poll the jury. When the court polled the jury, five of the jurors indicated they saw the broadcast. Juror Karen Robinson said she was in the kitchen, and her little girl hollered that she was on T.V. Juror Howard Yawn said he saw a little blip where the district attorney said he may not be able to put the little girl on the stand. Juror Shelby Tims said he saw just a sketch of it. Juror Margaret Hill said that she just passed by and saw the picture but didn't really hear anything. Juror Julius Sims said he saw it. All five jurors said that they would not be affected by the media coverage and that they could follow the court's instructions and totally disregard it. Although the court did not specifically rule on the defendant's motion, the court did allow the five jurors to remain on the jury and so, by implication, overruled the motion for a mistrial. Johnson appeals this ruling. Whether to declare a mistrial is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Brent v. State, 632 So.2d 936, 941 (Miss. 1994). The failure of the court to grant a motion for mistrial will not be overturned on appeal unless the trial court abused its discretion. Bass v. State, 597 So.2d 182, 191 (Miss. 1992). A person is competent to be a juror even where he has gained an impression about the case through the media if the court finds that the juror has no interest, bias or prejudice in the prosecution, and no desire to reach a result other than gained from the evidence and the law in the case, and that any opinion he had formed would yield entirely to the evidence and the law. Simmons v. State, 241 Miss. 481, 489, 130 So.2d 860, 863 (1961). In Mack v. State, 650 So.2d 1289 (Miss. 1994), two prospective jurors admitted they read a newspaper account about the case on the evening of the first day of jury selection. These two were later selected to serve on the jury. The defendant contended that selection of these two jurors prejudiced his case because the newspaper article indicated that he was an escapee when he committed the crime for which he was being tried. This Court held that the defendant's contention was without merit because the court had questioned the jurors as to whether they could return a verdict based only on the testimony and evidence and the jurors had indicated they could. The jurors had also said they would not give any weight as to what they had read in the newspaper, and [t]he jurors' promises to follow the law `must be given considerable deference.' Id. at 1308 (quoting Porter v. State, 616 So.2d 899, 906 (Miss. 1993)). In Hannah v. State, 336 So.2d 1317 (Miss. 1976), the defendant moved for a mistrial on the basis that some members of the jury had access to a newspaper which carried an account of the trial. The court overruled the motion because there was not proof that any of the jurors had read the article and the possibility of exposure to the article did not deny the defendant his right to a fair trial. This Court agreed, especially in light of the fact that the article accurately portrayed the facts of the trial with which the jurors were already familiar and contained no prejudicial statement against either the state or the defendant. Id. at 1323. In Earley v. State, 595 So.2d 430 (Miss. 1992), an article on the trial appeared in the morning edition of the newspaper on the second day of trial. The judge polled the jurors to see if they had read the article and four jurors indicated they had seen or read it. The judge then questioned each of these four alone, and they all indicated that it would not affect their opinions in the case. The court denied the defendant's motion for a mistrial but did excuse the only juror who had read the entire article. The court again admonished the jury at a later time. This Court held that the trial court's decision was not an abuse of discretion. In this case, the jurors who had seen or heard some or all of the broadcast testified that they would not be affected by what they heard and would follow the instructions of the court. Because the jurors' promises to follow the law must be given considerable deference, the court did not err in overruling the defendant's motion for a mistrial.