What is the standard for a motion for a mistrial in a sexual assault case?

A trial court should grant a motion for mistrial "only when ' "a party's chances of receiving a fair trial have been irreparably damaged" ' [citation], that is, if it is 'apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction' [citation]. 'Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions.' [Citation.] Accordingly, we review a trial court's ruling on a motion for mistrial for abuse of discretion. [Citation.]" (People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 573.) Under this standard, a trial court's ruling will not be disturbed, and reversal of the judgment is not required, unless "the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice [citation]." (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 9-10.)

We find no abuse of discretion. Detective Avakian's statement was brief, no more inflammatory than the other evidence at trial, and followed immediately by a limiting instruction. "[W]e presume the jury faithfully followed the court's limiting instruction. [Citation.]" (People v. Ervine (2009) 47 Cal.4th 745, 776.) In arguing that the statement

Page 8