STATE v. LEWIS (2026)

Writ application granted. See per curiam.

Writ granted. The ruling of the court of appeal is vacated, the trial court's order granting a mistrial in this matter is reinstated, and the request for a stay is denied as moot.

A trial court has great discretion in deciding whether to grant a mistrial, and its ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. See, e.g., State v. Brown, 18-1999, p. 69 (La. 9/30/21), 330 So.3d 199, 254. Under La. C.Cr.P. art. 771, when an irrelevant or immaterial remark might prejudice the defendant, the court must admonish the jury on request, and it may grant a mistrial only if satisfied that an admonition will not assure the defendant a fair trial.

This Court previously determined that the defendant was prejudiced by the State's question and that an admonition was required. State v. Lewis, 26-1223 (La. 9/23/26) (per curiam). I believe that prejudice could have been fully cured by a properly constructed, contemporaneous admonition. Such an admonition would have told the jury that the State's question did not concern any other crime, that it was an improper attempt to attack the witness's credibility based on the State's perception of her lack of memory, and that the jury must disregard it.

The trial court erred in refusing to allow the State to treat this witness as hostile, and again in initially granting the mistrial that caused an extended recess in the trial. The State partially contributed to the present posture as well, by arguing below that nothing more than an instruction to disregard the question was necessary. The State would have been better served by offering an admonition directed at the specific harm its question caused.

Considering the current state of these proceedings, I concur in the Court's grant of the defendant's writ application reinstating the trial court's ruling on the mistrial pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. art. 771. Although the question is close, I cannot say on this record that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that an admonition would no longer suffice to cure the prejudice.

Weimer, C.J., dissents. McCallum, J., dissents. Cole, J., concurs and assigns reasons. Burris, J., dissents.