Opinion ID: 1089450
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Motion for Mistrial (82-KA-0764)

Text: By this assignment defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his Motion for Mistrial made during the testimony of Inspector Kay. During direct examination, after both Martha Spinks and Pam Spinks had given full details of what had taken place at their residence and while the state was laying a foundation for introduction of photographs taken of the scene, Inspector Kay remarked: This photograph is a photograph of the living room which merely shows the blood is on the carpet where they flopped around on the carpet floor. And this is adjacent to the kitchen area there.       This is a photograph of the front door to the trailer where the exit of the girls that was fighting for their lives To the subsequent defense objection and motion for a mistrial based on the highly prejudicial nature of the remarks, the trial judge responded: The jury is admonished to disregard the statement just made by the witness and the witness is admonished to make a plain statement of what the photographs represent and not elaborate with details. The Motion for Mistrial is denied. Defendant asserts that Kay's embellished descriptions of the photographs were prejudicial and designed to arouse the emotions of the jury. He further asserts that Kay's references to the girls in a trial involving an offense against only one of them constitutes references to another crime which requires a mistrial under C.Cr.P. Art. 770(2). La.C.Cr.P. art 770(2) mandates a mistrial, upon motion of a defendant, when a remark or comment, made within the hearing of the jury by the judge, district attorney, or a court official, during the trial or in argument, refers directly or indirectly to:... [a]nother crime committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant as to which evidence is not admissible. (Emphasis supplied) State v. Hayes, 414 So.2d 717 (La.1982). This Court has adhered to its position that a police officer is not a court official within the meaning of La.C. Cr.P. art. 770 and therefore a mistrial is not required even if a policeman in the course of testifying refers to another crime. Hayes, supra; State v. Carter, 412 So.2d 540 (La.1982). The appropriate remedy for inappropriate remarks by a police officer is an admonition to the jury to disregard the remark. La.C.Cr.P. art. 771. Such an admonition was indeed given in this case by the trial judge. Furthermore Inspector Kay's use of the plural, girls, is permissible as part of the res gestae of the attempted murder of Martha Spinks. La.R.S. 15:447 and 15:448. The events in the instant case were inextricably intertwined with those of the accompanying prosecution for the attempted murder of Pam Spinks so that it would have been impossible for the state to present its case as to one without mention of the other. State v. Parker, 425 So.2d 683 at 693 (La.1982), (on rehearing). Accordingly Kay's references were permissible as part of the res gestae because of the close connexity in time and location of the noted events and the continuous nature of the transactions involved. State v. Haarala, 398 So.2d 1093 at 1097 (La.1981). Finally, defendant's contention that Kay's subjective descriptions of the contents of the photographs was highly prejudicial is likewise without merit. Kay's statements did not make it impossible for Harper to obtain a fair trial. As this Court observed in State v. Tribbet, 415 So.2d 182 at 186 (La.1982): A mistrial is a drastic remedy and except in instances in which it is mandatory, is only warranted if substantial prejudice results which would deprive defendant of a fair trial. State v. Sepulvado, 367 So.2d 762 (La.1979). The determination of unnecessary prejudice lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Douglas, 389 So.2d 1263 (La.1980). The trial court's admonition gave adequate notice to the jury that Kay's subjective references were not to be accorded any evidentiary value. The jury could view the photographs themselves and draw their own conclusions in the light of other testimony presented at trial. This assignment lacks merit.