Cited by

Impropriety by plaintiffs’ counsel, if any, was immediately addressed by the trial court, and we presume the jury followed the curative instructions.

State v. Martin, 138 N.H. 508, 516, 643 A.2d 946, 951 (1994) (citations, quotations, and brackets omitted); see Walton v. City of Manchester, 140 N.H. 403, 408, 666 A.2d 978, 981-82 (1995), Remedial action includes, but is not limited to, curative jury instructions, which the jury is presumed to follow.

Even if the defendant’s trial counsel had preserved the issues for review on the defendant’s direct appeal, we would not have reversed- *165 the superior court’s denial of a motion for a mistrial absent an abuse of discretion.

A mistrial under these circumstances would be appropriate only if the prosecutor’s comment created an “irreparable injustice that cannot be cured by jury instructions.” State v. Lemire, 130 N.H. 552, 555, 543 A.2d 425, 426 (1988).

[T]he State properly clarified what had been referenced in the statement which the defense found objectionable.” The standard of review of the denial of a motion for a mistrial is whether the trial court abused its discretion.

*94 Mistrial is the proper remedy only if the evidence or comment complained of was not merely improper, but also so prejudicial that it constitutes an “irreparable injustice that cannot be cured by jury instructions.” State v. Lemire, 130 N.H. 552, 554, 543 A.2d 425, 426 (1988).

The trial court’s denial of a motion for mistrial will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.

Thus, even if prejudicial testimony was introduced against the defendant, the motion for mistrial may be denied because curative instructions are presumed to be followed.” State v. Lemire, 130 N.H. 552, 554-55, 543 A.2d 425, 426-27 (1988) (emphasis added) (citations and quotation omitted).

Thus, even if prejudicial testimony was introduced against the defendant, the motion for mistrial may be denied because curative instructions are presumed to be followed.” State v. Lemire, 130 N.H. 552, 554-55, 543 A.2d 425, 426-27 (1988) (citations and quotation omitted).

The proper standard for reviewing the denial of a motion for a mistrial is whether the trial court abused its discretion.

“To justify a mistrial, prejudicial testimony must be more than inadmissible, it ‘must constitute an irreparable injustice that cannot be cured by jury instructions.’” State v. Hunter, 132 N.H. 556, 561, 567 A.2d 564, 568 (1989) (quoting State v. Lemire, 130 N.H. 552, 555, 543 A.2d 425, 426 (1988)).

“The standard of review of the denial of a motion for a mistrial is whether the trial court abused its discretion.” State v. Lemire, 130 N.H. 552, 554, 543 A.2d 425, 426 (1988).

Curative instructions are presumed to be understood and followed by the jury.

nstruction, you must follow it, and you must follow it scrupulously.” With regard to the defendant’s claim that a mistrial should have been declared after the jury heard testimony about the defendant’s statement that his roommate was a homosexual, we recognize that these remarks would require a mistrial only if they constituted an irreparable injustice that could not be cured by jury instructions.

We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s untimely motion for mistrial.

“The remarks or the conduct must be more than merely inadmissible; they must constitute an irreparable injustice that cannot be cured by jury instructions.” State v. Lemire, 130 N.H. 552, 555, 543 A.2d 425, 426 (1988); see also State v. Scarlett, 118 N.H. 904, 906, 395 A.2d 1244, 1246 (1978) (because of irreparable prejudice, and despite trial court curative instruction, defendant was granted mistrial after State introduced blood-stained bedspread without establishing proper foundation).

“The standard of review of the denial of a motion for a mistrial is whether the trial court abused its discretion.” State v. Lemire, 130 N.H. 552, 554, 543 A.2d 425, 426 (1988).