context: Identification of photos of a defendant as mug shots has resulted in reversal of convictions on appeal because they imply a criminal history. On the other hand, reference to identifying photographs as mug shots also has been deemed to be harmless error.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.parenthetical: police testimony referring to photo of defendant as coming from "our gallery" did not require mistrial
citation_a.sentence: See State v. Porambo, 226 N.J.Super. 416, 425-26, 544 A.2d 870 (App.Div.1988) (although reference to defendant’s mug shots suggested defendant’s prior involvement in criminal activity, it was not reversible error because references were “fleeting” and trial court gave a curative instruction); State v. Miller, 159 N.J.Super. 552, 561-62, 388 A.2d 993 (App.Div.1978); cf. State v. O’Leary, 25 N.J. 104, 115-16,135 A.2d 321 (1957) (police testimony referring to photo of defendant as coming from “our gallery” did not require mistrial).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: although reference to defendant's mug shots suggested defendant's prior involvement in criminal activity, it was not reversible error because references were "fleeting" and trial court gave a curative instruction
citation_b.sentence: See State v. Porambo, 226 N.J.Super. 416, 425-26, 544 A.2d 870 (App.Div.1988) (although reference to defendant’s mug shots suggested defendant’s prior involvement in criminal activity, it was not reversible error because references were “fleeting” and trial court gave a curative instruction); State v. Miller, 159 N.J.Super. 552, 561-62, 388 A.2d 993 (App.Div.1978); cf. State v. O’Leary, 25 N.J. 104, 115-16,135 A.2d 321 (1957) (police testimony referring to photo of defendant as coming from “our gallery” did not require mistrial).