Opinion ID: 2533183
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: failure to grant a mistrial after witness testified to inadmissable and prejudicial matters

Text: ¶ 93. Pitchford's next assignment of error is that the trial court should have declared a mistrial after a State witness improperly testified to prejudicial and improper matters during cross-examination. As Pitchford's counsel was cross-examining James Hathcock, who had testified that Pitchford had confessed the crime to him in jail, the following occurred: Q: Are you and Pitchford good friends? Were y'all good friends? A: We lived close to each other for a little while. Q: Did y'all become real good friends where you would tell him your secrets? A: Not really. Q: Okay. And yet you want us to believe that he felt comfortable enough with you to tell you that he killed somebody. A: Well, he was selling me dope. ¶ 94. After this exchange, the jury was excused and Pitchford immediately moved for a mistrial, which the trial court refused to grant. The State previously had disclosed to the defense the fact that Pitchford had sold drugs to Hathcock. The trial judge instructed the jury to totally disregard the statement and made each juror affirm that he or she would disregard it. ¶ 95. A trial court must declare a mistrial when there is an error in the proceedings resulting in substantial and irreparable prejudice to the defendant's case. [55] This Court reviews a trial court's decision on a motion for a mistrial under an abuse-of-discretion standard. [56] ¶ 96. The witness's statement was clearly improper. However, the trial court took immediate and appropriate steps to cure any prejudicial effect. Furthermore, it is presumed that jurors follow the instructions of the court. To presume otherwise would be to render the jury system inoperable. [57] Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to grant a mistrial. [58]