The court appropriately exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial based upon the prosecutor's cross-examination of defendant on the subject of whether he had previously given his version of the facts to anyone other than his attorney. The questioning, which was responsive to defendant's testimony, was not so prejudicial as to warrant a mistrial. The court's striking of the question and answer and its thorough curative instruction were adequate...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
