Court Opinion

ID: 9721812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:10:12.842543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:28.765370
License: Public Domain

BABLITCH, J.
(Dissenting.) I would reverse and remand for a new trial in the interests of justice because I think the cumulative effect of the errors claimed on appeal deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
*381This was a close case tried on sharply conflicting testimony. In this context it strains credulity to posit that a jury which knew that the defendant was in leg irons during trial not only disregarded the inadmissible and highly prejudicial testimony about past attacks on other guards but also held the state to its proper burden of proof on the self-defense issue after receiving confusing instructions.
I agree with the majority that the trial court took all reasonable precautions to offset the effects of the shackles. These precautions failed, however, to the obvious prejudice of the defendant’s case. There is no suggestion in the record or otherwise that the defendant’s reference to his leg irons was a deliberate attempt to obtain a mistrial.
Where reasonable precautions fail, through inadvertence, to protect a shackled defendant against the potentially prejudicial effects of the shackling, mistrial may well be warranted. In this case, where the failure was preceded by inflammatory references to the defendant’s past violence, I would hold that a mistrial was required.