abuse of discretion standard in Texas

2023When applying the abuse of discretion standard, we look to see if the underlying decision was made “without reference to any guiding rules and principles.” Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 380 .

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW “[A]s an appellate court, we review the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” Jackson v. State, 562 S.W.3d 717, 722 (Tex. App.— Amarillo 2018, no pet.) (citing Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim.

2019The Trial Court Did Not Err in Finding that Kelly Was the Proper Outcry Witness A. The Standard of Review Is Abuse of Discretion “We review a trial court’s decision to admit an outcry statement under an abuse of discretion standard.” Allen v. State, 436 S.W.3d 815 , 820–21 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, pet. ref’d) (citing Owens v. State, 381 S.W.3d 696, 703 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012, no pet.) (citing Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex. Crim.

2016STANDARD OP REVIEW “We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” Sandoval v. State, 409 S.W.3d 259, 297 (Tex.App.— Austin 2013, no pet.); accord Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006); Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).

2011We review a trial court’s decision to exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard, and we must therefore affirm the trial court’s decision unless it is beyond the “zone of reasonable disagreement.” Green v. State , 934 S.W.2d 92 , 101–02 (Tex. Crim.

2011We review a trial court’s decision to exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard, and we must therefore affirm the trial court’s decision unless it is beyond the ―zone of reasonable disagreement.‖ Green v. State, 934 S.W.2d 92 , 101–02 (Tex. Crim.

2023“We review an order revoking community supervision under an abuse of discretion standard.” Id. (citing Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim.

2023“We review an order revoking community supervision under an abuse of discretion standard.” Id. (citing Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim.

2021“We review the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence, as well as its decision as to whether the probative value of evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, under an abuse of discretion standard.” Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727, 736 (Tex. Crim.

2015Standard of Review “The trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence” is reviewed “under an abuse of discretion standard.” Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727, 736 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 2966 , 180 L.Ed.2d 253 (2011). Á trial court abuses its discretion when its decision lies outside the zone of reasonable disagreement.” Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870, 879 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007).

2025“Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, legal 4 and factual sufficiency are not independent grounds for reversal, they are simply relevant factors in determining if the trial court abused its discretion.” Id. (citing Beaumont Bank, N.A. v. Buller, 806 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex. 1991)).

2025Dejean, in a Chapter 23A susceptibility-to-partition-in-kind case, explained the relationship between abuse of discretion and sufficiency review this way: “Under an abuse-of- discretion standard, legal and factual sufficiency are not independent grounds for reversal, they are simply relevant factors in determining if the trial court abused its discretion.” Dejean, 2024 WL 1668018 , at *2 (citing Beaumont Bank, N.A., 806 S.W.2d at 226 ).

2015The Trial Court’s Discretion “A trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Torres v. State, 71 S.W.3d 758, 760 (Tex. Crim.

2015App. 2009) (“A trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of extraneous offenses is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.”); Torres v. State, 71 S.W.3d 758, 760 (Tex. Crim.

2026“We review a trial court’s decision regarding custody, control, and possession matters involving [children] under an abuse of discretion standard.” In re B.F., No. 06-24-00100-CV, 2025 WL 2252577 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Aug. 7, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.) (alteration in original) (quoting In re D.W.J.B., 362 S.W.3d 777, 780 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012, no pet.) (citing Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982))).

2026Modification of Child Support and Transfer Location A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law “We review a trial court’s decision regarding custody, control, and possession matters involving [children] under an abuse of discretion standard.” In re B.F., No. 06-24-00100-CV, 2025 WL 2252577 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Aug. 7, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.) (alteration in original) (quoting In re D.W.J.B., 362 S.W.3d 777, 780 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012, no pet.) (citing Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982))).

2025“A trial court’s denial of a mistrial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Id. (citing State v. Gonzales, 855 S.W.2d 692, 696 (Tex. Crim.

2010He further asserts that the spectator’s conduct was “designed to deny appellant a fair trial.” A trial court’s denial of a request for a mistrial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.40 An appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, considering only those arguments before the court at the time of the ruling.41 The ruling must be upheld if it was within the zone of reasonable disagreement.42 A mistrial is an extreme remedy that should be granted “only when residual prejudice remains” after less drastic alternatives have been explored.

2015Standard of Review “A trial court's ruling denying a defendant's motion for new trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 148 (Tex. Crim.

2015Standard of Review “A trial court's ruling denying a defendant's motion for new trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 148 (Tex. Crim.

2010“Generally, a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is reviewed by an abuse of discretion standard.” Oles v. State, 993 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex. Crim.

2010"Generally, a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is reviewed by an abuse of discretion standard." Oles v. State , 993 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex. Crim.

2023P. 190.3(b)(1)(B) (“All discovery must be conducted during the discovery period, which begins when the first initial disclosures are due and continues until[] . . . the earlier of (i) 30 days before the date set for trial, or (ii) nine months after the first initial disclosures are due.”). 40666 S.W.3d at 56, 59; see Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tex. 2004) (“A trial court’s ruling on a motion for sanctions is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.”). 41 TEX.

2020Standard of Review “A trial court’s ruling on a motion for sanctions is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tex. 2004); accord Am.

2023Standard of Review “An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision to exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” Burden v. State, 55 S.W.3d 608, 615 (Tex. Crim.

2005See Burden , 55 S.W.3d at 615 (indicating that we review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard).

2006However, under the abuse of discretion standard applied to decisions on whether to admit or exclude evidence, see Alvarado , 897 S.W.2d at 753-54 , Cooper has not discussed how the evidentiary ruling, if error, resulted in an improper judgment.

2006However, under the abuse of discretion standard applied to decisions on whether to admit or exclude evidence, see Alvarado , 897 S.W.2d at 753-54 , Cooper has not discussed how the evidentiary ruling, if error, resulted in an improper judgment.

2016Thus, “[w]e review a trial court’s decision to submit or refuse a particular instruction under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. (citing Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. E.B., 802 S.W.2d 647, 649 (Tex. 1990)).

2016Thus, “[w]e review a trial court’s decision to submit or refuse a particular instruction under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. (citing Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. E.B., 802 S.W.2d 647, 649 (Tex. 1990)).

2026Dowtech Specialty Contractors, Inc. v. City of Weinert, 630 S.W.3d 206 , 215 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2020, pet. denied) (citing Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam)); see Diaz v. Diaz, 350 S.W.3d 251, 256 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, pet. denied) (“Under an abuse of discretion standard, we will not reverse the trial court’s judgment if the trial court reaches a correct result even for a wrong reason.”).

2026Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990). 5 In family law cases, the abuse-of-discretion standard overlaps with the traditional sufficiency-of-the-evidence standards of review.

2025See Villareal v. State, 935 S.W.2d 134, 138 (Tex. Crim.

2015The test for abuse of discretion requires the appellate court to determine whether the trial court acted in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner without reference to any guiding rules or principles.4 A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner or without reference to any guiding rules or principles.5 An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court clearly failed to analyze and determine the law correctly or applied the law incorrectly to the facts.6 Because Appellant is challenging the trial court’s misapplication of law and fact in denying its Motion

2014Ex parte Skelton, No. 04–12– 00066–CR, - - - S.W. 3d - - -, 2014 WL 2198379, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 28, 2014, no pet.) (op. on reh’g) (citing Ex parte Garcia, 353 S.W.3d at 787-88 ) (adopting the abuse of discretion standard set out in Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim.

2014Ex parte Skelton, No. 04-12-00066- CR, 2014 WL 2198379, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 28, 2014, no pet. h.) (op. on reh’g) (citing Ex parte Garcia, 353 S.W.3d at 787-88 ) (adopting the abuse of discretion standard set out in Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim.

2025“Further, the defendant’s opening statement may open the door to the admission of 17 extraneous offense evidence to rebut opening statement defensive theories.” Id. (citing De La Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 344–45). “[A] trial judge’s ruling on the admissibility of extraneous offenses is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting De La Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 343 ).

2025“Further, the defendant’s opening statement may open the door to the admission of 17 extraneous offense evidence to rebut opening statement defensive theories.” Id. (citing De La Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 344–45). “[A] trial judge’s ruling on the admissibility of extraneous offenses is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting De La Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 343 ).

2025The appointment of a Receiver lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and appellate courts review the appointment under an abuse of discretion standard. 72 A court may abuse its discretion by ruling “arbitrarily, unreasonably, ... without regard to guiding legal principles, or ... without supporting evidence.”73 Crucially, as to ruling “without supporting evidence,” the trial court generally does not abuse its discretion when its decision is based on conflicting evidence and some evidence in the record reasonably supports the trial court’s decision. 74 Thus, “[a] trial court does

2024See Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19 , 20–21 (Tex. 1998) (“The abuse of discretion standard applies when a trial court has discretion either to grant or deny relief based on its factual determinations.

2018Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 398 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996, no writ).

2018Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 398 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996, no writ).

2008Factual sufficiency review, however, does not apply to revocation proceedings.2 Orders revoking community supervision are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.3 Under this standard, proof by a preponderance of the evidence of any one of the alleged violations of community supervision is sufficient to support a revocation order.4 A plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the trial court’s revocation order.5 2 Allbright v. State, 13 S.W.3d 817, 818 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, pet. ref’d). 3 Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim.

2008We review an order revoking community supervision under an abuse of discretion standard.3 A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is made without reference to any guiding rules or principles, rendering the conclusion ultimately reached so arbitrary and unreasonable that it falls outside the zone within which reasonable minds may differ.4 In a revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated the terms and conditions of community supervision.5 Proof by a preponderance of the evidence of any one of the alleged violations of the

2015We review a trial court’s denial' of a motion for new trial under an abuse of discretion standard, Charles v. State, 146 S.W.3d 204, 208 (Tex.Crim.App.2004).

2015Id. (holding the trial court’s application of the Strickland test in a Motion for New Trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard); Charles v. State, 146 S.W.3d 204, 208 (Tex. Crim.

2009A. Standard of Review While our review of a trial court’s admission or exclusion of evidence is under the abuse of discretion standard, including extraneous offense evidence during the punishment phase of a trial, Mitchell v. State , 931 S.W.2d 950, 953 (Tex. Crim.

2009A. Standard of Review While our review of a trial court’s admission or exclusion of evidence is under the abuse of discretion standard, including extraneous offense evidence during the punishment phase of a trial, Mitchell v. State, 931 S.W.2d 950, 953 (Tex. Crim.

2026See Powell v. State, 63 S.W.3d 435, 438 (Tex. Crim.

2015“Because trial courts are in the best position to make the call on these substantive admissibility questions, an appellate court must review a trial court's admissibility decision under an abuse of discretion standard.” Powell v State, 63 S.W. 3d, 435 (Tex. Crim.

2019In evaluating an expert’s qualifications, the qualifications the expert possesses must be evident from the four corners of the report and from the resume that accompanies the expert’s report.22 We use an abuse-of-discretion standard when reviewing the trial court’s decision that an expert in a health care liability case has the qualifications that are required to allow 21 Id. at 226. 22 See Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 878 ; Christus Health Se.

2017This Court also “review[s] a trial court’s rulings on the adequacy of an expert report under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Hollingsworth v. Springs, 353 S.W.3d 506, 512 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.) (citing Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 877 ).

2026“A factual sufficiency challenge is not an independent ground for asserting error under the abuse of discretion standard but is a relevant factor in assessing whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Id. (citing Moroch v. Collins, 174 S.W.3d 849, 857 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied)).

2023“However, ‘[i]n family law cases, the abuse of discretion standard of review overlaps with traditional standards of review.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting In re C.G.L., No. 06-13-00068-CV, 2014 WL 887778 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Mar. 6, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.)).

2025Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839 ; Chandy v. Kerala Christian Adult Homes, LLC, 618 S.W.3d 880 , 886 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2021, no pet.) (“We review the trial court’s decision whether to terminate a receivership under an abuse of discretion standard.”).

2024But “[a] trial court does not abuse its discretion when basing a decision on conflicting evidence.” HouseCanary, Inc. v. Title Source, Inc., 622 S.W.3d 254 , 259 (Tex. 2021) (citing -5- 04-23-00146-CV Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 , 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)); accord Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 211 ; see In re Marriage of Thrash, 605 S.W.3d 224 , 229 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2020, pet. denied) (“Under an abuse of discretion standard, challenges to the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence are not independent grounds of error; rather, they are simply factors in assessing whether

2026Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the “legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence are not independent grounds of error but instead are factors used to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion.” A.S. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 665 S.W.3d 786 , 795 (Tex. App.—Austin 2023, no pet.) (citing Zeifman v. Michels, 212 S.W.3d 582, 587 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, pet. denied)).

2025“Under an abuse of discretion standard, legal and factual sufficiency challenges to the evidence are not independent grounds of error, but are relevant factors in assessing whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Zeifman v. Michels, 212 S.W.3d 582, 587 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, pet. denied).