A recent Tennessee decision addresses the law of mistrial – when should a judge grant a motion for a mistrial during a Tennessee civil jury trial?
This is what the Court of Appeals said in Benjamin L. Folkins, Et Al. v. Healthcare Group (Hong Kong) Co., Limited, No. E2022-00264-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2023).
“[N]ormally, a mistrial should be declared only if there is a manifest necessity for such action.” State v. Saylor, 117 S.W.3d 239, 250–51 (Tenn. 2003); State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247, 279 (Tenn. 2002). In making the determination whether a mistrial is warranted, “‘no abstract formula should be mechanically applied and all circumstances should be taken into account.’” State v. Mounce, 859 S.W.2d 319, 322 (Tenn.1993) (quoting Jones v. State, 218 Tenn. 378, 403 S.W.2d 750, 753 (1966)). State v. Nash, 294 S.W.3d 541, 546 (Tenn. 2009).
The party seeking a mistrial bears the burden of establishing that a mistrial is necessary. Teague v. Kidd, No. E2016-01995- COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 2299059, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 25, 2017) (citing State v. Moss, No. M2014-00746-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 5253209, at *24 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 21, 2016)).
Id. at *14-15.
The decision to grant or deny a motion for mistrial is in the discretion of the trial judge, and his or her decision will only be reversed for abuse of discretion. Id. at *14.