State may rebut presumption in Texas

2021However, the State may rebut this presumption of harm by showing that the defendant has not been injured, i.e., “that the case was not discussed or that nothing prejudicial about the accused was said.” Bokemeyer, 355 S.W.3d at 203 (citing Green v. State, 840 S.W.2d 394, 406 (Tex. Crim.

2015But the State may rebut this presumption of harm by showing that the defendant has not been injured, i.e., “that the case was not discussed or that nothing prejudicial to the accused was said.” Green v. State, 840 S.W.2d 394, 406 (Tex. Crim.

2021See Gates v. State, 24 S.W.3d 439, 443 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (holding that the State rebutted the presumption of harm when the victim’s son communicated with a juror prior to his testimony at trial because the only new information the son conveyed to the juror was that he was a witness in the case).

2011However, the State may rebut this presumption of harm by showing that the defendant has not been injured, i.e., “that the case was not discussed or that nothing prejudicial about the accused was said.” Green v. State, 840 S.W.2d 394, 406 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); compare Gates v. State, 24 S.W.3d 439, 443 (TexApp.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd) (holding that State rebutted presumption, when victim’s son communicated with juror prior to his testimony at trial, because only new information son conveyed to juror was that he was witness in case), with lies v. State, 923 S.W.2d 675, 676 (Tex.App.

2021App. 1992); compare Gates v. State, 24 S.W.3d 439, 443 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (holding that State rebutted presumption, when victim’s son communicated with juror prior to his testimony at trial, because only new information son conveyed to juror was that he was witness in case), with Ites v. State, 923 S.W.2d 675, 676 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. ref’d) (reversing trial court’s judgment because State failed to rebut presumption of harm when defendant’s son ran in front of jurors saying that if he had to spend an hour with his father, he would kill himself

2011However, the State may rebut this presumption of harm by showing that the defendant has not been injured, i.e., “that the case was not discussed or that nothing prejudicial about the accused was said.” Green v. State, 840 S.W.2d 394, 406 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); compare Gates v. State, 24 S.W.3d 439, 443 (TexApp.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd) (holding that State rebutted presumption, when victim’s son communicated with juror prior to his testimony at trial, because only new information son conveyed to juror was that he was witness in case), with lies v. State, 923 S.W.2d 675, 676 (Tex.App.

2009Of course, the State may rebut the presumption, id. at 299 (imposing upon the State the burden to show lack of need); Armour v. State, 606 S.W.2d at 893 (holding the same), or show that acceptable alternatives exist in lieu of providing a transcript.

2009Of course, the State may rebut the presumption, id. at 299 (imposing upon the State the burden to show lack of need); Armour v. State, 606 S.W.2d at 893 (holding the same), or show that acceptable alternatives exist in lieu of providing a transcript.

2009Of course, the State may rebut the presumption, id. at 299 (imposing upon the State the burden to show lack of need); Armour v. State, 606 S.W.2d at 893 (holding the same), or show that acceptable alternatives exist in lieu of providing a transcript.

2009Of course, the State may rebut the presumption, id. at 299 (imposing upon the State the burden to show lack of need); Armour v. State, 606 S.W.2d at 893 (holding the same), or show that acceptable alternatives exist in lieu of providing a transcript.

1997Robinson, 851 S.W.2d at 230 ; Thomas v. State, 699 S.W.2d 845, 853-854 (Tex.Crim.App.1985).

1997Robinson, 851 S.W.2d at 230 ; Thomas v. State, 699 S.W.2d 845, 853-854 (Tex.Crim.App.1985).

2022See Gonzales, 435 S.W.3d at 815 (concluding State failed to persuasively rebut presumption of prejudice arising after six-year delay between indictment and arrest of defendant, following which defendant quickly asserted his right to speedy trial); State v. Wei, 447 S.W.3d 549, 557 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d) (“Absent a showing that appellee acquiesced in the delay, it was the State’s burden to rebut the presumption of prejudice because appellee was absolved from the requirement to demonstrate prejudice.” (quotation omitted)).

2018See Gonzales, 435 S.W.3d at 815 .

2008Alba v. State, 905 S.W.2d 581, 587 (Tex. Crim.

2005Alba v. State , 905 S.W.2d 581, 587 (Tex. Crim.

2018Id.

2009Id.

2009Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. at 230 , 92 S.Ct. at 435 (noting that the defendant is not responsible for negating the existence of sufficient alternatives). 1 From the record before us, we see that upon the declaration of a mistrial, appellant immediately sought a continuance and the transcript.

2009Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. at 230 , 92 S.Ct. at 435 3 (noting that the defendant is not responsible for negating the existence of sufficient alternatives).1 From the record before us, we see that upon the declaration of a mistrial, appellant immediately sought a continuance and the transcript.

2024“In determining whether the State rebutted the presumption of harm, appellate courts should defer to the trial court’s resolution of the historical facts and its determinations concerning credibility and demeanor.” Id.; see Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim.

2024Fish, 609 S.W.3d at 181; Robinson v. State, 844 S.W.2d 925, 929 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no pet.) (explaining that evidence of extraneous offense may be used to rebut defensive theory such as self- defense, even though not specifically listed in Rule 404), cited with approval in Rogers v. State, 105 S.W.3d 630 , 633 n.4 (Tex. Crim.

2022See Gonzales, 435 S.W.3d at 815 (concluding State failed to persuasively rebut presumption of prejudice arising after six-year delay between indictment and arrest of defendant, following which defendant quickly asserted his right to speedy trial); State v. Wei, 447 S.W.3d 549, 557 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d) (“Absent a showing that appellee acquiesced in the delay, it was the State’s burden to rebut the presumption of prejudice because appellee was absolved from the requirement to demonstrate prejudice.” (quotation omitted)).

2019Johnston v. State, 145 S.W.3d 215, 222 (Tex. Crim.

2017See Jackson v. State, 17 S.W.3d 664, 674 (Tex. Crim.

2011“If evidence is in the record that rebuts the presumption of harm, it should be considered, whether presented by the State or the defense.” Alexander v. State, 919 S.W.2d 756, 767 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1996, no pet.).

2004Id.; Bochas v. State, 951 S.W.2d 64, 71 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1997, pet. denied).

1988Reid v. State, 749 S.W.2d 903, 909-11 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1988, no pet.); McDonald v. State, 597 S.W.2d 365, 367 (Tex.Crim.App.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1010 , 101 S.Ct. 564 , 66 L.Ed.2d 467 (1980); Esterline v. State, 707 S.W.2d 171, 177 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1986, pet. ref’d).

1988Reid v. State, 749 S.W.2d 903, 909-11 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1988, no pet.); McDonald v. State, 597 S.W.2d 365, 367 (Tex.Crim.App.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1010 , 101 S.Ct. 564 , 66 L.Ed.2d 467 (1980); Esterline v. State, 707 S.W.2d 171, 177 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1986, pet. ref’d).

1988Reid v. State, 749 S.W.2d 903, 909-11 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1988, no pet.); McDonald v. State, 597 S.W.2d 365, 367 (Tex.Crim.App.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1010 , 101 S.Ct. 564 , 66 L.Ed.2d 467 (1980); Esterline v. State, 707 S.W.2d 171, 177 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1986, pet. ref’d).