The Court of Appeal finds no error in the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a mistrial after a prosecution witness used the term “moniker” despite the exclusion of all gang evidence. Although people working in criminal justice may connect the word “moniker” with gangs, the defendant did not establish that lay people would also associate the term with gangs. Thus this one use of “moniker” did not deny defendant a fair trial. The Court of Appeal further finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s mid-trial Marsden and Faretta motions.
The…
The Court of Appeal finds no error in the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a mistrial after a prosecution witness used the term “moniker” despite the exclusion of all gang evidence. Although people working in criminal justice may connect the word “moniker” with gangs, the defendant did not establish that lay people would also associate the term with gangs. Thus this one use of “moniker” did not deny defendant a fair trial. The Court of Appeal further finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s mid-trial Marsden and Faretta motions.
The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B335646.PDF
