Mote v. State

Citations: 775 N.E.2d 687; 2002 Ind. App. LEXIS 1592; 2002 WL 31116798Docket: 25A03-0112-CR-411

Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; September 25, 2002; Indiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Carl Mote, Jr. appealed his jury conviction for Child Molestation, a Class C felony, resulting in an eight-year executed sentence. He raised three issues, with the key argument being whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motions for mistrial. Mote had previously filed a Motion in Limine to prevent the admission of evidence regarding his prior arrests or convictions, claiming such evidence was inadmissible under Indiana law due to lack of notice and because he had not been convicted of any infamous crime. The parties agreed to this motion before jury selection.

During the trial, a redacted videotape was played, which Mote objected to, claiming it contained improper references to his prior arrests and convictions. He submitted multiple motions for mistrial based on these alleged violations. The trial court denied these motions, stating that the videotape did not contain specific references to arrests or convictions, only mentioning Mote’s probation status and a vague reference to his criminal record, which the court deemed minor.

After the jury convicted Mote, he filed a Motion to Correct Error, which was denied. On appeal, Mote contended that the trial court's refusal to grant a mistrial was an abuse of discretion, arguing that the references in the videotape were prejudicial and placed him in grave peril. The appellate court noted that to succeed, Mote needed to demonstrate that the trial court’s actions were prejudicial enough to affect the jury's decision significantly. Additionally, it highlighted that a mistrial is an extreme remedy, and corrective measures like jury admonitions are typically viewed as sufficient to address any errors.

The admission of evidence regarding prior arrests or convictions is strictly regulated due to its potential prejudicial impact, only permissible if it demonstrates significant probative value, as outlined in Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b). In this case, Mote contended that a redacted videotape improperly referenced his criminal history twelve times. These references included statements by Officer Brinson about Mote's past, indicating that it should not affect the current proceedings, and Mote's own admissions related to his prior incarceration and probation meetings. The State argued that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying Mote's mistrial motions, asserting that the references were general and not specific to any offense, thus not prejudicing Mote's case. The trial court acknowledged the presence of inadmissible material on the tape and took steps to mute or edit these portions before presenting it to the jury, ensuring that the trial process adhered to legal standards.

After the jury viewed a video, the trial court judge granted a brief recess during which Mote's counsel filed motions for mistrial, citing specific prejudicial references included in the video. The judge denied these motions, reasoning that the references were vague and not directly tied to specific events, characterizing them as relatively innocuous. Upon the jury's return, the judge failed to instruct them to disregard the references to Mote's prior arrests and convictions. This omission likely prejudiced the jury's decision-making regarding Mote's innocence or guilt, placing him in a precarious position. The court found these references excessively prejudicial and detrimental to the defense, leading to the conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the mistrial motions. Consequently, the ruling was reversed, with BAILEY, J. and SULLIVAN, J. concurring.