State v. Jaros, A18-0039
b'Respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Michael Jaros with two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and false imprisonment for a June 2016 incident. During a jury trial, a detective testified that a forensic analysis of Jaros\\u2019s cell phone was performed. The detective stated that Jaros\\u2019s cell phone contained a number of pornographic photographs that showed violence towards women and \\u201csome of which corroborated [the complainant\\u2019s] story about what had happened.\\u201d\\n\\nJaros did not object to this testimony, but he later asked for a mistrial. The district court denied the motion for a mistrial but struck the testimony. The district court provided immediate curative and cautionary instructions to the jury. In the final jury instructions, the district court instructed the jurors that if the court had asked them to disregard something they had seen or heard, they must do so.\\n\\nThe jury found Jaros guilty of all counts. The court of appeals affirmed his convictions.\\n\\nOn appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the test announced in State v. Cox, 332 N.W.2d 555 (Minn. 1982), applies to the denial of a motion for a mistrial based on improper evidence being presented to the jury; and (2) whether Jaros is entitled to a new trial based on the detective\\u2019s testimony about the pornographic images found on Jaros\\u2019s cell phone. (Otter Tail County)'