McClendon v. State
570 S.W.3d 450
Ark.2019Background
- Defendant McClendon was convicted; this opinion is a concurrence/dissent by Justice Hart addressing denial of a mistrial motion.
- Defense obtained an in limine order barring evidence of McClendon’s criminal history and asked the court to instruct the prosecutor to so advise witnesses.
- The prosecutor failed to instruct witnesses, and witness Frances Horn testified that McClendon received a vehicle "when he got out of prison this last time," implying prior incarcerations.
- Defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial; the trial court denied the motion and gave repeated curative instructions to the jury.
- The majority affirmed the denial, characterizing the prosecutor’s infraction as inadvertent and the curative instruction as sufficient; Justice Hart concurs in part (sufficiency of evidence) but dissents as to the mistrial denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial after a witness referenced defendant's prison history | Hart: The prosecutor failed to follow an in limine order; the comment was prejudicial propensity evidence and a mistrial was required | Majority: The comment was inadvertent, prejudice was minimal, and curative instruction cured any harm | Majority upheld denial of mistrial; Hart would reverse that denial |
| Whether prosecutor’s failure to instruct witnesses about the in limine order can be treated as harmless | Hart: Failure to instruct violated the court’s order and must be held against the State to deter recurrence | Majority: Treats failure as inadvertent and curable | Majority treats it as inadvertent and curable; Hart rejects harmlessness rationale |
| Whether jury admonition cured prejudice from impermissible propensity inference | Hart: Repeated curing instruction amplified attention to the improper evidence and did not cure prejudice | Majority: The jury instruction cured any resulting prejudice | Hart would find admonition insufficient; majority found it sufficient |
| Whether witness testimony here constituted inadmissible propensity evidence under rules of evidence | Hart: Testimony implied multiple imprisonments and past criminality—classic propensity evidence barred by rules | State: Framed testimony as establishing identification/familiarity with defendant's vehicle | Hart views testimony as impermissible propensity evidence; majority treated it as limited to vehicle familiarity |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 366 Ark. 8 (2006) (trial court's mistrial rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Armstrong v. State, 366 Ark. 105 (2006) (consider whether prosecutor induced prejudicial response and whether admonition could cure prejudice)
- Tryon v. State, 371 Ark. 25 (2007) (mistrial is drastic remedy; should be declared only for prejudicial error that cannot be cured)
- Maiden v. State, 2014 Ark. 294 (2014) (same principle on mistrial as drastic remedy)