Carter v. State, 366 Md. 574

Summary

The Court of Appeals of Maryland considered whether the trial court erred by giving curative instructions over the defendant’s objection and by denying multiple motions for a mistrial. The court held that the trial judge had discretion to give curative instructions, but that the prejudicial effect of improperly admitted other-crimes evidence and related prosecutorial misconduct transcended the instructions’ curative effect. The court therefore reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial.

Holdings

1. When inadmissible evidence has been presented to the jury, the decision whether to give a cautionary or limiting instruction lies within the trial court's discretion; the defendant has no absolute right to veto or reject the instruction.
2. The trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial because the cumulative prejudice from repeated inadmissible prior-bad-acts evidence and an improper closing argument transcended the curative effect of the instructions. The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and Carter was entitled to a new trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court had discretion to give curative or limiting instructions over Carter's objection after inadmissible and prejudicial prior-bad-acts evidence was presented to the jury.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Carter's motions for mistrial based on the cumulative prejudice from the inadmissible evidence and the prosecutor's improper closing argument.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded