Opinion ID: 2509294
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Trial Court's Voir Dire Reference to Murder

Text: During voir dire, in the course of questioning a prospective juror, the trial court said, You know, to be quite blunt about it, there's one thing that's not in dispute in this case. That's that an eight-year-old girl was murdered. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial, arguing that the trial court had prejudged the evidence by referring to the killing as a murder. The trial court denied the motion, observing, I think the point you're making is a point that, when the case is finally submitted to the jury, no juror will even remember. Nonetheless, at the prosecutor's prompting, the trial court later repeatedly told prospective jurors that it had not intended to imply a murder had occurred, but that this was a determination for the jury. Defendant contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a mistrial because its reference to murder lowered the prosecution's burden of proof. Not so. Denial of a motion for a mistrial is reviewed for abuse of discretion and should be granted `only when a party's chances of receiving a fair trial have been irreparably damaged.' ( People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 282, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 682, 1 P.3d 3, quoting People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 749, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203, 976 P.2d 754.) The motion should be granted only if the trial court is informed of the prejudice and it judges the prejudice to be insusceptible of being cured by admonition or instruction. ( People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 713-714, 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 871, 3 P.3d 248.) The trial court's brief reference to murder in the particular context in which it occurred was not prejudicial but, in any event, any prejudice was cured by the court's subsequent clarifications.