mistrial error in California

2024“There is little doubt exposing a jury to a defendant’s prior criminality presents the possibility of prejudicing a defendant’s case and rendering suspect the outcome of the trial.” (People v. Harris, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 1580 .) But whether the erroneous admission of such evidence warrants granting a mistrial or whether the error can be cured by striking the testimony and admonishing the jury rests in the trial court’s discretion.

2020The Attorney General 15 responds that the trial court acted within its discretion in finding Moore’s testimony not incurably prejudicial.7 “Whether in a given case the erroneous admission of . . . evidence [of a defendant’s prior criminality] warrants granting a mistrial or whether the error can be cured by striking the testimony and admonishing the jury rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.” (People v. Harris (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1575, 1581 .) “ ‘Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with consid

2018But here again, courts have "considerable discretion" to determine whether such an error warrants granting a mistrial or whether the error can be cured through admonishment or instruction. ( People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841 , 854, 180 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 640 P.2d 776 ["A mistrial should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction. [Citation.] Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions."]; see als

2018But here again, courts have "considerable discretion" to determine whether such an error warrants granting a mistrial or whether the error can be cured through admonishment or instruction. ( People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841 , 854, 180 Cal.Rptr. 640 , 640 P.2d 776 ["A mistrial should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction. [Citation.] Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions."]; see als

2016(People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Cal.4th 466, 474 ; People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 372 .) A. Mistrial motion Defendants’ challenge to the ruling on the mistrial motion is based on a claim that the trial court applied the wrong legal analysis.

2013Applicable Legal Principles "'A motion for mistrial is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court [and ]should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice [it deems] incurable by admonition or instruction.'" (People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 953 .) "'Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions.'" (People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 986 .) Thus, "[w]hether in a given case the erroneous admission of [evidence of the defendant's prior c

2025Appellant’s claim that the prosecutor must have reviewed the preliminary hearing transcript is sheer speculation, and “ ‘ “speculation is not evidence.” ’ ” (People v. Fielder (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1221, 1234 .) Moreover, even this speculation is undermined by the fact that defense counsel below was also present at the preliminary hearing, yet did not remember that testimony at the time of trial and, apparently, had not reviewed this portion of the preliminary hearing transcript.

2024(People v. McLain (1988) 46 Cal.3d 97, 113 .) As in the case of spectator misconduct, a mistrial for erroneous admission of evidence should be granted only “if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction.” (People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 854 .) “A jury is presumed to have followed an admonition to disregard improper evidence particularly where there is an absence of bad faith. [Citations.] It is only in 17 the exceptional case that ‘the improper subject matter is of such a character that its effect . . . cannot be removed by the court’s adm

2024(People v. McLain (1988) 46 Cal.3d 97, 113 .) As in the case of spectator misconduct, a mistrial for erroneous admission of evidence should be granted only “if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction.” (People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 854 .) “A jury is presumed to have followed an admonition to disregard improper evidence particularly where there is an absence of bad faith. [Citations.] It is only in 17 the exceptional case that ‘the improper subject matter is of such a character that its effect . . . cannot be removed by the court’s adm

2024(Id. at p. 1581.) “[I]t is only in the ‘exceptional case’ that any prejudice from an improperly volunteered statement cannot be cured by appropriate admonition to the jury.” (People v. Franklin (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 938, 955 .) To establish prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant need not show the prosecutor acted in bad faith.

2024(People v. Beck and Cruz (2019) 8 Cal.5th 548, 634 ; see also People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 421, 459 [“courts have ‘considerable discretion’ to determine whether such an error warrants granting a mistrial or whether the error can be cured through admonishment or instruction”].) We review the court’s ruling for abuse of that discretion.

2020But . . . courts have ‘considerable discretion’ to determine whether such an error warrants granting a mistrial or whether the error can be cured through admonishment or instruction.” (People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 421, 459 .) ‘“Juries often hear unsolicited and inadmissible comments and in order for trials to proceed without constant mistrial, it is axiomatic the prejudicial effect of these comments may be corrected by judicial admonishment; absent evidence to the contrary the error is deemed cured.’” (People v. McNally (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1428-1429 .) “We review the trial court’s

2020But . . . courts have ‘considerable discretion’ to determine whether such an error warrants granting a mistrial or whether the error can be cured through admonishment or instruction.” (People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 421, 459 .) ‘“Juries often hear unsolicited and inadmissible comments and in order for trials to proceed without constant mistrial, it is axiomatic the prejudicial effect of these comments may be corrected by judicial admonishment; absent evidence to the contrary the error is deemed cured.’” (People v. McNally (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1428-1429 .) “We review the trial court’s

2016(People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Cal.4th 466, 474 ; People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 372 .) A. Mistrial motion Defendants’ challenge to the ruling on the mistrial motion is based on a claim that the trial court applied the wrong legal analysis.

2016The court relied on People v. Kross (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 602 (Kross), in which the defendant, who was accused of stealing fur coats by concealing them in his oversized pants, was confronted by news 65. photographers in the courtroom while several jurors were present.

2013Analysis We are guided by the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515 (Bolden).

2013(Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862 [“‘[w]hen a[] [defendant] fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived’”].) We address only whether the removal by the prosecutor of Prospective Juror Thompson constituted a Batson/Wheeler violation and refer to voir dire by the prosecutor as it was relevant to her removal. 9 “[O]ne accused of a crime has a constitutional right to a trial by impartial jurors. [Citations.]” (In re Hitchings (1993) 6 Cal.4th 97, 110 .) “Both the Cal

2013Applicable Legal Principles "'A motion for mistrial is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court [and ]should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice [it deems] incurable by admonition or instruction.'" (People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 953 .) "'Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions.'" (People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 986 .) Thus, "[w]hether in a given case the erroneous admission of [evidence of the defendant's prior c

2013(Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862 [“‘[w]hen a[] [defendant] fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived’”].) We address only whether the removal by the prosecutor of Prospective Juror Thompson constituted a Batson/Wheeler violation and refer to voir dire by the prosecutor as it was relevant to her removal. 9 “[O]ne accused of a crime has a constitutional right to a trial by impartial jurors. [Citations.]” (In re Hitchings (1993) 6 Cal.4th 97, 110 .) “Both the Cal

2013(Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862 [“‘[w]hen a[] [defendant] fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived’”].) We address only whether the removal by the prosecutor of Prospective Juror Thompson constituted a Batson/Wheeler violation and refer to voir dire by the prosecutor as it was relevant to her removal. 9 “[O]ne accused of a crime has a constitutional right to a trial by impartial jurors. [Citations.]” (In re Hitchings (1993) 6 Cal.4th 97, 110 .) “Both the Cal

2013Applicable Legal Principles "'A motion for mistrial is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court [and ]should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice [it deems] incurable by admonition or instruction.'" (People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 953 .) "'Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions.'" (People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 986 .) Thus, "[w]hether in a given case the erroneous admission of [evidence of the defendant's prior c

2012In these circumstances, petitioners’ simple request for an admonition on an evidentiary matter cannot be magnified into a waiver of their constitutional protection against double jeopardy.” (Curry, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 713 .) Supreme Court cases citing Curry without discussion include People v. Upshaw (1974) 13 Cal.3d 29, 34 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 668 , 528 P.2d 756 ] (silence does not constitute consent to the mistrial even when defense counsel invited the error which caused the mistrial); People v. Superior Court (Marks) (1991) 1 Cal.4th 56, 77 , footnote 20 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 389 , 820 P.2d 613 ] (c

2012In these circumstances, petitioners’ simple request for an admonition on an evidentiary matter cannot be magnified into a waiver of their constitutional protection against double jeopardy.” (Curry, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 713 .) Supreme Court cases citing Curry without discussion include People v. Upshaw (1974) 13 Cal.3d 29, 34 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 668 , 528 P.2d 756 ] (silence does not constitute consent to the mistrial even when defense counsel invited the error which caused the mistrial); People v. Superior Court (Marks) (1991) 1 Cal.4th 56, 77 , footnote 20 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 389 , 820 P.2d 613 ] (c

2012In these circumstances, petitioners’ simple request for an admonition on an evidentiary matter cannot be magnified into a waiver of their constitutional protection against double jeopardy.” (Curry, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 713 .) Supreme Court cases citing Curry without discussion include People v. Upshaw (1974) 13 Cal.3d 29, 34 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 668 , 528 P.2d 756 ] (silence does not constitute consent to the mistrial even when defense counsel invited the error which caused the mistrial); People v. Superior Court (Marks) (1991) 1 Cal.4th 56, 77 , footnote 20 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 389 , 820 P.2d 613 ] (c