P. v. Luna CA2/5
A jury found defendant Joseph Luna guilty of possession of methamphetamine for sale. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court violated his due process right to a fair trial by admitting the opinion testimony of the prosecution’s drug expert that defendant possessed methamphetamine for sale “beyond a reasonable doubt.” According to defendant, that testimony was highly prejudicial and grounds for a mistrial.
We hold that, because the trial court struck the challenged testimony immediately after it was presented, admonished the jury to disregard it, and then properly instructed the jury on reasonable doubt, the court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion for mistrial. We therefore affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Luna CA2/5