Moe v. State
2017 Ark. App. 546
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- James Moe was charged with third-degree domestic battery and aggravated assault of his girlfriend; also charged as a habitual offender.
- Court granted Moe’s pretrial request to appear in civilian clothes and without restraints.
- At trial, a responding officer (Corporal Farrer) testified and, while recounting a phone call with Moe, volunteered that Moe said he wanted to talk to his parole officer first.
- Moe’s counsel immediately moved for a mistrial based on the unsolicited mention of parole status; the court denied the motion and instructed the jury to disregard the parole remark.
- The jury convicted Moe on both counts; he appealed solely arguing the court abused its discretion by denying the mistrial.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the remark was inadvertent, not deliberately elicited, and that the jury admonition cured any prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moe) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial after an officer mentioned Moe’s parole status | The unsolicited reference to parole was highly prejudicial; admonition insufficient; akin to cases where incarceration status prejudiced the jury | The comment was inadvertent, not deliberately elicited; a jury admonition cured any prejudice; similar precedent upheld denial | Denied abuse of discretion; denial of mistrial affirmed — admonition was adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. State, 144 S.W.3d 260 (discussing mistrial as an extreme remedy)
- McClinton v. State, 464 S.W.3d 913 (factors for mistrial review; trial court discretion)
- Jones v. State, 78 S.W.3d 104 (holding denial of mistrial proper where officer inadvertently disclosed parole status)
- Box v. State, 71 S.W.3d 552 (reversing when defendant forced to appear in prison uniform; distinguishes parole-status statements)
- Brown v. State, 65 S.W.3d 394 (mistrial standard precedent)
- Hall v. State, 862 S.W.2d 268 (trial judge’s broad discretion on mistrial decisions)
- Flores v. State, 194 S.W.3d 207 (noting appellate courts cannot overrule supreme court precedent)