This court has consistently held that the trial judge is vested with wide discretion in determining the relevancy of evidence, and his ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion. State v. King, Nos. 60,732 and 60,733, 355 So.2d 1305 (La., 1978); State v. Russell, 352 So.2d 1289 (La. 1977); State v. George, 346 So.2d 694 (La. 1977); State v. Owens, 301 So.2d 591 (La. 1974); State v. Ackal, 290 So.2d 882 (La. 1974). In the instant case, the testimony of Mrs. Sepulvado was presented by the state to establish the birth date of her daughter in order to prove that she was twelve years of age or over but under the age of seventeen years, an essential element of the crime of carnal knowledge of a juvenile under La.R.S. 14:80.
This court has consistently held that the trial judge is vested with wide discretion in determining the relevancy of evidence, and his ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion. State v. King, 355 So.2d 1305 (La. 1978); State v. Russell, 352 So.2d 1289 (La. 1977); State v. George, 346 So.2d 694 (La. 1977); State v. Owens, 301 So.2d 591 (La. 1974); State v. Ackal, 290 So.2d 882 (La. 1974). In the instant case, testimony at trial linked each of the items introduced in evidence to either defendant or his co-participant in the rape.
Mistrial is a drastic remedy and, except in instances in which the mistrial is mandatory, is warranted only when a trial error results in substantial prejudice to the defendant, depriving him of a reasonable expectation of a fair trial. La. Code Crim.P. art. 775; State v. Russell, 352 So.2d 1289 (La. 1977). In the instant case, defendant claims that the report on the neurological examination conducted by Dr. Chesson was the first indication that an insanity defense might be available to him.
This Court's jurisdiction in criminal matters extends only to questions of law, and thus where a defendant has moved for a judgment of acquittal in trial before a judge alone, or for a new trial based upon the contention that the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the State does not reasonably permit a finding of guilty, a question of law is presented which the Supreme Court can review. State v. Hudson, 373 So.2d 1294 (La. 1979); State v. Russell, 352 So.2d 1289 (La. 1977); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). This procedural requirement having been complied with by the defendant, we move on to examine the law in light of the evidence observed hereinabove.
Mistrial is a drastic remedy and, except in instances in which the mistrial is mandatory, is warranted only when a trial error results in substantial prejudice to the defendant, depriving him of a reasonable expectation of a fair trial. State v. Russell, 352 So.2d 1289 (La. 1977); State v. Overton, 337 So.2d 1058 (La. 1976); State v. Redfud, 325 So.2d 595 (La. 1976). This determination lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed, absent an abuse of that discretion.
This court has consistently held that the trial judge is vested with wide discretion in determining the relevancy of evidence and his ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Drew, 360 So.2d 500 (La. 1978); State v. King, 355 So.2d 1305 (La. 1978); State v. Russell, 352 So.2d 1289 (La. 1977); State v. George, 346 So.2d 694 (La. 1977). We are satisfied that neither defendant's commission of the offenses in question nor the requisite intent would have been negatived by testimony as to what occurred between defendant and Ms. Watson.
In a trial before a judge alone, the proper procedural vehicle for raising this objection is a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the state's case. La.C.Cr.P. art. 778; State v. Williams, 354 So.2d 152 (La. 1977); State v. Russell, 352 So.2d 1289 (La. 1977); State v. Blackstone, 347 So.2d 193 (La. 1977). Examination of the trial court record discloses that defense counsel did not move for an acquittal.
Mistrial is a drastic remedy, unwarranted if not mandatory unless a trial error substantially prejudices the defendant, depriving him of a fair trial. State v. Russell, 352 So.2d 1289 (La. 1977). No deprivation of a fair trial resulted from the prosecutor's remarks which are the subject of defendant's complaints.
Four additional assignments of error were neither briefed not argued and are therefore considered to have been abandoned. State v. Russell, 352 So.2d 1289 (La. 1977). We have reviewed defendant's assignments of error and found them to be without merit.
This court has consistently held that the trial judge is vested with wide discretion in determining the relevancy of evidence, and his ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion. State v. King, 355 So.2d 1305 (La. 1978); State v. Russell, 352 So.2d 1289 (La. 1977); State v. George, 346 So.2d 694 (La. 1977); State v. Owens, 301 So.2d 591 (La. 1974); State v. Ackal, 290 So.2d 882 (La. 1974); In the instant case, the testimony of defendant's wife was presented by the state to refute a defense alibi anticipated by the state that defendant was with his wife when the burglary was committed and, therefore, could not have participated in the crime. Furthermore, by the witness' testimony, the state connected defendant with Craig, an alleged Co-participant in the crime who was arrested as he filed from the scene of the burglary.