Abuse of Discretion – Motion for Mistrial Denied

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District III

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Juan J. Castillo

Case No.: 2020AP983-CR

Officials: Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, JJ.

Focus: Abuse of Discretion – Motion for Mistrial Denied

Juan Castillo appeals a judgment convicting him of one count of first-degree sexual assault of a child (sexual contact with a person under the age of thirteen). See WIS. STAT. § 948.02(1)(e) (2019-20). Castillo argues the circuit court erred by excluding his expert witness’s testimony regarding factors that can affect the reliability of a child’s statements. Castillo also argues the court erred by denying his motions for a mistrial after two witnesses made statements during their testimony that violated the court’s pretrial evidentiary rulings.

We reject Castillo’s argument that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by excluding his expert witness’s testimony. The court reasonably concluded that the proffered testimony was inadmissible because it was not sufficiently tied to the facts of the case and was likely to confuse the jury.

We agree with Castillo, however, that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by denying his motions for a mistrial. In doing so, we acknowledge that when a defendant’s request for a mistrial is not based on any laxness or overreaching by the prosecution, we must give great deference to the circuit court’s ruling. See State v. Bunch, 191 Wis. 2d 501, 507, 529 N.W.2d 923 (Ct. App. 1995). We also acknowledge that the court instructed the jury to disregard the statements in question, and that we generally presume jurors follow the court’s instructions. See State v. Truax, 151 Wis. 2d 354, 362, 444 N.W.2d 432 (Ct. App. 1989). Nevertheless, we conclude that in this case, the combined prejudicial effect of the relevant statements was so great that the court’s cautionary instructions were insufficient to remedy the error. As Castillo aptly states, under the circumstances present here, the “evidentiary bell” simply “could not be unrung” after the jury heard the statements in question. The court therefore erred by refusing to grant Castillo a mistrial. Accordingly, we reverse Castillo’s judgment of conviction and remand for a new trial.

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is Corporate Counsel, at Salesforce.