People v. Jenkins CA4/1

introduction of the objectionable testimony. But sometimes, even that is not enough and the question becomes one of damage control. In the midst of a fast-moving trial, the judge must decide whether something short of a complete do-over can preserve the parties’—in this case, a criminal defendant’s—right to a fair trial. Our review of that decision must necessarily give considerable deference to the trial judge’s firsthand observations of the trial proceedings and “feel” for the case. She was in the best position to determine whether the witness’s verbal misstep could be cured by an admonition. Here, we do not believe the court abused its discretion in concluding that sustaining defense

2 counsel’s objection and striking the objectionable testimony, coupled with a prompt instruction that the jury was to entirely disregard it, was an adequate remedy. We also reject Jenkins’s additional argument that there was insufficient admissible evidence to show that he was in possession of the stolen truck. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In late March 2023, the owner of a Ford pickup truck reported the vehicle missing and presumably stolen from his driveway in…