Court Opinion

ID: 9771725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:52:03.280323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:35.773035
License: Public Domain

Tom GLAZE, Justice, concurring in part. I fully agree with the majority as to point one, but concur regarding point two — its holding that the prosecutor’s reference to “other offenses” was error, albeit unprejudicial. I believe no error was committed. It should be kept in mind that appellant Lawrence Stanley was being tried both for aggravated robbery and escape. Accordingly, the jury was entided to hear evidence of Stanley’s conduct, including other offenses, up until the time he was apprehended. It is also significant that the record reflects that the only other offense or conduct committed by Stanley was a speeding violation. Thus, assuming the prosecutor’s remark suggested a graver offense than speeding was involved, that remark could easily have been rectified by an admonishment or cautionary statement by the trial court. Stanley failed to request an admonition. For that reason alone, the trial court was correct in denying Stanley’s mistrial motion. JESSON, C.J., joins this concurrence.