## Facts

- Grady Harris was arrested, charged with armed robbery, and held in jail.
- About six weeks after his arrest, officers transported Harris from the jail to a hospital for treatment.
- While the officers were driving on an interstate exit ramp, Harris jumped from the police car and attempted to flee.
- The officers quickly captured Harris.
- At Harris’s armed-robbery jury trial, Harris testified.
- On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Harris about the attempted escape.
- Defense counsel objected; the trial court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard the question.
- Defense counsel moved for a mistrial based on the prosecutor’s reference to the escape attempt; the trial court denied the motion.
- The jury convicted Harris of armed robbery, and Harris appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying a mistrial after the prosecutor, in the jury’s presence, asked Harris about his attempted escape, where the objection was sustained and the jury was instructed to disregard the question.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed Harris’s conviction.
- The court held that the prosecutor’s single question about the attempted escape did not require a mistrial under the circumstances.
- Because the objection was sustained, the question went unanswered, and the jury was admonished to disregard it, the trial court’s corrective action was sufficient to cure any prejudice.
- The court therefore found no reversible error in the denial of the mistrial.

## Legal Principles

- A mistrial is an extreme remedy and is not required for every improper question; the remedy depends on whether the defendant suffered prejudice that could not be cured.
- An admonition to the jury to disregard an improper question may be an adequate cure, especially when the question is isolated and the jury hears no answer or supporting evidence.
- Louisiana’s mandatory-mistrial rule for references to other crimes applies only when the prosecutor’s remark concerns another offense “as to which evidence is not admissible”; when the remark does not create incurable prejudice in context, denial of mistrial will be upheld.
- Trial courts have discretion in ruling on mistrial motions based on allegedly prejudicial statements during examination, and appellate review focuses on whether that discretion was abused.

## Conclusion

State v. Harris, 381 So. 2d 792 (La. 1980), affirms an armed-robbery conviction where the prosecutor asked a single, unanswered cross-examination question about the defendant’s attempted escape; the trial judge sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard the question, and the Supreme Court held that this curative instruction was sufficient and that the trial court did not err in denying a mistrial.


State v. Harris, 381 So. 2d 792 (1980)