Harding v. State

The prosecutor's violation of a motion in limine ruling during her opening statement did not require a mistrial, given the nature of the statement, the other evidence in the case, and the action taken by the trial court and counsel concerning the impropriety.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Dino Harding appeals from his convictions of armed robbery, false imprisonment, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. In his sole enumeration of error, he contends the trial court erred by denying his motion for mistrial based upon the assistant district’s attorney’s violation of a motion in limine ruling during her opening statement. Because the curative instruction provided by the trial court was adequate to preserve Harding’s right to a fair trial, we affirm. In order to analyze Harding’s claim, we must examine the facts supporting his convictions. The record shows that a movie theater employee saw a person standing by the manager’s door who asked him if the assistant manager, “JB,” was inside his office. Because no one called the assistant manager JB unless they knew him, the employee walked over and opened the door. The man then grabbed the employee by the shoulder, placed a gun next to his head, and ordered him to get down on the floor. Next, he ordered the assistant manager, who had been counting the cash in the safe, to get on the floor as well. After hogtieing the employee and the assistant manager, he took cash from the safe and left.

The assistant manager testified that he recognized the intruder as someone who had applied for a job earlier in the week. He knew the man by the name of Ansel Christopher and testified that “Christopher” had come into the theater “at least once a day for a week” to ask about a job. At trial, he identified Harding as the man he knew as Christopher.

Harding v. State

The prosecutor's violation of a motion in limine ruling during her opening statement did not require a mistrial, given the nature of the statement, the other evidence in the case, and the action taken by the trial court and counsel concerning the impropriety.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report