What is the effect of a partial answer from a police officer to a question in a criminal case?

Finally, the jury was repeatedly instructed that the question was not evidence, that both the question and partial answer were stricken, and that neither of them could be considered for any purpose. "A jury is presumed to have followed an admonition to disregard improper evidence particularly where there is an absence of bad faith. [Citations.] It is only in the exceptional case that 'the improper subject matter is of such a character that its effect . . . cannot be removed by the court's admonitions.' [Citation.]" (People v. Allen (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 924, 934-935; People v. Valdez (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1437.)

Appellant makes much of the trial court's comment that, "Once it [sic] rung it's difficult to unring it." This is not that "exceptional case" where the proverbial bell cannot be "unrung" by instructions. Unlike such cases as People v. Navarrete (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 828, in which a police officer referred to the defendant's suppressed statement, the partial answer elicited from Detective Zottneck provided no direct link between appellant and the crimes in this case. It was simply not so powerfully incriminating that a juror would be unable to disregard it.