In Jones v. Kiger, 194 Ariz. 523,4, 984 P.2d 1161, 1163 (App. 1999), a witness gave hearsay testimony that a defendant asserted "was prejudicial and antagonistic to her defense." Her co-defendant "insisted that the hearsay testimony was not prejudicial to his case and requested that the trial continue." Id.5. In concluding that the trial court had abused its discretion in granting a mistrial over the co-defendant's objection, we noted that the court "could have . . . admonished the jury not to consider" the testimony. Id.12. In Jones, the Court pointed out that the trial court "ignored defense counsel's assertion that his case was not damaged by the hearsay testimony without considering why that might be true." Id.10. The Court stated that, although "the trial court is usually in the best position to determine whether manifest necessity requires a mistrial," the court "must recognize that the defendant has a significant interest in deciding whether to take the case from the jury and 'retains primary control over the course to be followed in the event of such error.'" Id.9.