context: It may well be that no curative instruction could have overcome the impact of the witness' statements. However, we are confident that the one given here was completely ineffectual.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 111 R.I. 602, 609-10
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that "there remains for the appellate court the question of whether such instructions were adequate to have disabused the jury's mind of the prejudicial effect of the objectionable evidence"
citation_a.sentence: See State v. Manfredi, 118 R.I. 144, 149, 372 A.2d 975, 977 (1977) (holding that reversible error was committed when the Court could not determine that the instruction given by the trial justice was sufficient to remove the taint of the statement and such doubt was to be resolved in favor of the defendant); see also State v. Costa, 111 R.I. 602, 609-10, 306 A.2d 36,40 (1973) (stating that “there remains for the appellate court the question of whether such instructions were adequate to have disabused the jury’s mind of the prejudicial effect of the objectionable evidence”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 372 A.2d 975, 977
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that reversible error was committed when the Court could not determine that the instruction given by the trial justice was sufficient to remove the taint of the statement and such doubt was to be resolved in favor of the defendant
citation_b.sentence: See State v. Manfredi, 118 R.I. 144, 149, 372 A.2d 975, 977 (1977) (holding that reversible error was committed when the Court could not determine that the instruction given by the trial justice was sufficient to remove the taint of the statement and such doubt was to be resolved in favor of the defendant); see also State v. Costa, 111 R.I. 602, 609-10, 306 A.2d 36,40 (1973) (stating that “there remains for the appellate court the question of whether such instructions were adequate to have disabused the jury’s mind of the prejudicial effect of the objectionable evidence”).