gave instruction in Texas

2009Cf. Fuller v. State, 827 S.W.2d 919, 926 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) (instruction given morning after objectionable reference to collateral offense too late to cure error by itself).

2009Cf. Fuller v. State, 827 S.W.2d 919, 926 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) (instruction given morning after objectionable reference to collateral offense too late to cure error by itself).

2023Id. reprimand during his time as interim police chief, as well as his employment record, which showed that he had worked for five or six police departments since 2009. 13 Here, the trial court gave an instruction to disregard Officer Brown’s nonresponsive answer, and Wood does not direct us to any evidence that the jury failed to follow that instruction.

2023See id.

2011See Hawkins, 135 S.W.3d at 77 ; 32 Mosley, 983 S.W.2d at 259 .

2011See Hawkins , 135 S.W.3d at 77 ; Mosley , 983 S.W.2d at 259 .

2009Cf. Griggs, 213 S.W.3d at 927 (holding that appellant’s motion for mistrial was untimely and failed to preserve his complaint for appellate review); Mitchell, 1998 WL 78122 , at *3 (holding that appellant’s motion for mistrial was properly denied when the court gave an instruction to disregard, even though appellant contended that the State’s closing argument that he was a “violent, angry person” was clearly calculated to inflame the jury and was harmful). 10 The Court erred in admitting evidence that did not substantially establish that aggravated sexual assault had occurred.

2009Cf. Griggs , 213 S.W.3d at 927 (holding that appellant’s motion for mistrial was untimely and failed to preserve his complaint for appellate review); Mitchell , 1998 WL 78122 , at *3 (holding that appellant’s motion for mistrial was properly denied when the court gave an instruction to disregard, even though appellant contended that the State’s closing argument that he was a “violent, angry person” was clearly calculated to inflame the jury and was harmful).

2007In the charge to the jury, the jury was instructed not to refer to or allude to [appellant's] decision not to testify and not to take his decision into consideration for any purpose as a circumstance against him." Archie , at 435 (Gray, C.J., concurring and dissenting). [1] Justice Reyna issued a lead opinion, which was not joined in its entirety by either of the other members of the court.

2007In the charge to the jury, the jury was instructed not to refer to or allude to [appellant's] decision not to testify and not to take his decision into consideration for any purpose as a circumstance against him." Archie , at 435 (Gray, C.J., concurring and dissenting).

2026To the extent it is relevant to our review, we note that the trial court gave an instruction directing the jury that it may consider the evidence regarding Sister’s extraneous-offense testimony only if they first found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed the offenses and that even if they did, that “the defendant is not on trial for any offenses not alleged in the indictment” and that they “must determine if the State proved all elements for the offense alleged in the 13 indictment.” Cf. Beam v. State, 447 S.W.3d 401, 405 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (noting th

2024See Lane v. State, 933 S.W.2d 504, 520 (Tex. Crim.

2022App. 2003). 112 Young v. State, 283 S.W.3d 854, 878 (Tex. Crim.

2022The trial court gave an instruction to disregard, and ordinarily a prompt instruction to disregard will cure error associated with an improper question and answer.111 And generally, such an instruction will cure prejudice from a witness’s inadvertent reference to an extraneous offense112 or from a nonresponsive answer.113 An instruction to disregard is more likely to cure prejudice when the improper reference is isolated.114 Ranger O’Connor’s reference to bundles of marijuana was an isolated, nonresponsive answer and the trial court’s instruction to disregard was prompt, occurring immediately

2021See Hinojosa v. State, 555 S.W.3d at 267-268 (acts of sexual abuse in another county considered for sufficiency review); 1 Because the State could not guarantee that the child victims would not spontaneously discuss conduct not contained in the indictment, the trial court gave a standard extraneous offense limiting instruction: You are instructed that if there is any testimony before you in this case regarding the Defendant having committed any offenses, if any, other than the offenses alleged against him in the indictment in this case, you cannot consider said testimony for any purpose unless

2021King v. State Page 10 Meraz, 415 S.W.3d at 506 (same).

2018In Banes v. Dunger, 181 2 Cal. App. 2d 276, 282 [ 5 Cal. Rptr. 278 ], the court gave an instruction to the effect that the jury was not to speculate as to any injuries claimed by the plaintiffs, and that if the evidence left the existence or cause of any alleged injuries a matter of conjecture or doubt, that then the plaintiffs had not sustained the burden of proof.

2017See Capello v. State, 775 S.W.2d 476, 489 (Tex. App.—Austin 1989, pet. ref'd) (holding no error existed where' six veniremembers initially expressed concerns about a defendant’s decision not to testify but then expressed no more concern after the court instructed . them on the law).

2017Finally, on the issue of a dog being tangible personal property, such a definition is not present in the Parks and Wildlife Code, and a “trial court may not include an instruction that focuses the jury’s attention on a specific type of evidence that may support a finding of an element of an offense.” Kirsch v. State, 357 S.W.3d 645, 651 (Tex. Crim.

2014See Garza, 633 S.W.2d at 512 ; Louis, 825 S.W.2d at 756 .

1994See Love v. State, 833 S.W.2d 264, 266 (Tex.App.—Austin 1992, pet. ref'd).