mistrial error in Texas

2017App. 1999)); Wood v. State, 18 S.W.3d 642, 648 (Tex. Crim.

2016Wood v. State, 18 S.W.3d 642, 648 (Tex. Crim.

2024Cruz 18 v. State, 225 S.W.3d 546, 548 (Tex. Crim.

2015Cruz v. State, 225 S.W.3d 546, 548 (Tex. Crim.

2020“A defendant must contemporaneously object to the statement, request an instruction that the jury disregard the statement if the objection is sustained, and move for a mistrial if an instruction to disregard is given.” Id. (citing Cook v. State, 858 S.W.2d 467, 473 (Tex. Crim.

2019“To preserve error regarding improper jury argument for appellate review, a defendant must contemporaneously object to the statement, request an instruction that the jury disregard the statement if the objection is sustained, and move for a mistrial if an instruction to disregard is given.” Robinson v. State, No. 05-16-00449-CR, 2017 WL 2264823 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 24, 2017, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Cook v. State, 858 S.W.2d 467, 473 (Tex. Crim.

2010See id. at 67-68 (holding that venireperson’s statement in aggravated sexual assault of a child case that in twenty-five years’ of social work she had never had a child lie about being sexually assaulted did not warrant a mistrial because an instruction, had it been requested, would have cured any prejudice from the remarks); Long v. State, 823 S.W.2d 259 , 267 n.9 (Tex. Crim.

2010See id. at 67-68 (holding that venireperson’s statement in aggravated sexual assault of a child case that in twenty-five years’ of social work she had never had a child lie about being sexually assaulted did not warrant a mistrial because an instruction, had it been requested, would have cured any prejudice from the remarks); Long v. State, 823 S.W.2d 259 , 267 n. 9 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (prosecutor’s argument that used an Adolf Hitler analogy, implying defendant was evil, could have been cured by an instruction to disregard).

2022The trial court should grant a mistrial only if the error is “highly prejudicial and incurable[.]” Simpson v. State, 119 S.W.3d 262, 272 (Tex. Crim.

2013Because a mistrial is an extreme remedy, a trial court should declare a mistrial only when the error or misconduct is “highly prejudicial and incurable.” Simpson v. State, 119 S.W.3d 262, 272 (Tex. Crim.

2015Cruz v. State, 225 S.W.3d 546, 548 (Tex.Crim.App.2007); Cooks v. State, 844 S.W.2d 697, 727-28 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); Tex.R.App.

2012Cooks v. State, 844 S.W.2d 697, 727-28 (Tex. Crim.

2024See Ocon, 284 S.W.3d at 885 ; Wright, 374 S.W.3d at 583 .

2011See Ocon , 284 S.W.3d at 884 .

2017Applicable Law A trial court may declare a mistrial when an error occurs that is “‘so prejudicial that expenditure of further time and expense would be wasteful and futile.’” Hawkins, 135 S.W.3d at 77 (quoting Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547, 567 (Tex. Crim.

2015See Hawkins, 135 S.W.3d at 77 ; Simpson v. State, 119 S.W.3d 262, 272 (Tex. Crim.

2003See Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc. v. Cordova , 332 S.W.2d 753, 757 (Tex. Civ.

2003See Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc. v. Cordova , 332 S.W.2d 753, 757 (Tex. Civ.

2015Standard of Review When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion for mistrial, an appellate court must uphold the ruling absent an abuse of discretion and as long as it is “within the zone of reasonable disagreement.” Wead v. State, 129 S.W.3d 126, 129 (Tex. Crim.

2007Analogizing the standard of review to that for reviewing the denial of a motion for mistrial and the admission or exclusion of evidence, Wead v. State, 129 S.W.3d 126, 129 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (denial of a mistrial standard) and Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (admission of evidence standard), we review the evidence under the abuse of discretion standard.

2018A court presumes that a jury followed the trial court’s admonition to disregard the testimony Hinojosa v. State, 4 S.W.3d 240, 253 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). -14- In Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), the court found that the denial of a motion for a mistrial was not error.

2017Applicable Law A trial court may declare a mistrial when an error occurs that is “‘so prejudicial that expenditure of further time and expense would be wasteful and futile.’” Hawkins, 135 S.W.3d at 77 (quoting Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547, 567 (Tex. Crim.

1986Then, in Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982), the United States Supreme Court, acknowledging the confusion occasioned by the varying statements of the exception under which prosecutorial misconduct resulting in a mistrial will bar a retrial, opted to focus on the intent of the prosecutor in applying the exception to the principle that prosecu-torial misconduct creates no bar to a second trial. 456 U.S. at 674-79 , 102 S.Ct. at 2088-91 .

1986Then, in Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 , 102 S.Ct. 2083 , 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982), the United States Supreme Court, acknowledging the confusion occasioned by the varying statements of the exception under which prosecutorial misconduct resulting in a mistrial will bar a retrial, opted to focus on the intent of the prosecutor in applying the exception to the principle that prosecu-torial misconduct creates no bar to a second trial. 456 U.S. at 674-79 , 102 S.Ct. at 2088-91 .

2024Archie v. State, 221 S.W.3d 695, 699 (Tex. Crim.

2023Id. (quoting Ramon v. State, 159 S.W.3d 927, 929 (Tex. Crim.

2024Thus, the trial court is required to declare a mistrial only when the error is “[c]learly calculated to inflame the minds of the jury and is of such character as to suggest the impossibility of withdrawing the impression produced on the minds of the jury.” Hinojosa v. State, 4 S.W.3d 240, 253 (Tex. Crim.

2018A court presumes that a jury followed the trial court’s admonition to disregard the testimony Hinojosa v. State, 4 S.W.3d 240, 253 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). -14- In Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), the court found that the denial of a motion for a mistrial was not error.

2022App. 2003); Adams v. State, 156 S.W.3d 152, 157 (Tex. App.— Beaumont 2005, no pet.).

2006App. 2003); Adams v. State, 156 S.W.3d 152, 157 (Tex. App.- Beaumont 2005, no pet.).

2015See Haney v. Purcell Co., Inc., 796 S.W.2d 782, 789 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] We overrule point of error two. 1990, writ denied) (holding that objection must be specific enough to inform trial court of reason for Mistrial objection.) There has been no showing that the trial In point of error three, Till asserts the trial court abused its discretion. court erred by failing to declare a mistrial after the jury heard irrelevant and prejudicial evidence We overrule point of error three. against him.

2015Haney v. Purcell Co., Inc., 796 S.W.2d 782, 789 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, writ denied) (holding that objection must be specific enough to inform trial court of reason for Mistrial objection.) There has been no showing that the trial court abused its discretion.

2007Analogizing the standard of review to that for reviewing the denial of a motion for mistrial and the admission or exclusion of evidence, Wead v. State, 129 S.W.3d 126, 129 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (denial of a mistrial standard) and Rodriguez v. State, 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (admission of evidence standard), we review the evidence under the abuse of discretion standard.

2007App. 2004) (denial of a mistrial standard) and Rodriguez v. State , 203 S.W.3d 837, 841 (Tex. Crim.

2007See Masonheimer, 154 S.W.3d at 250 .

2007See Masonheimer, 154 S.W.3d at 250 .

2003Nethery v. State , 692 S.W.2d 686, 701 (Tex. Crim.

2003Nethery v. State, 692 S.W.2d 686, 701 (Tex. Crim.

2002See Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc. v. Cordova, 332 S.W.2d 753, 757 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1960, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Southwestern Freight Lines v. McConnell, 269 S.W.2d 427, 430-31 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1954, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

1997Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc. v. Cordova, 332 S.W.2d 753 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1960, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Southwestern Freight Lines v. McConnell, 269 S.W.2d 427, 430-31 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1954, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

2014See Young, 137 S.W.3d at 67–68 (holding that venireperson’s statement in aggravated sexual assault of a child case that in twenty-five years’ of social work she had never had a child lie about being sexually assaulted did not warrant a mistrial because an instruction, had it been requested, would have cured any prejudice from the remarks); Long v. State, 823 S.W.2d 259 , 267 n. 9 (Tex. Crim.

2011App. 2004) (holding that venireperson’s statement in aggravated sexual assault of a child case that in twenty-five years’ of social work she had never had a child lie about being sexually assaulted did not warrant a mistrial because an instruction, had it been requested, would have cured any prejudice from the remarks); Long v. State, 823 S.W.2d 259 , 267 n.9 (Tex. Crim.

2024Pursuing the objection to an adverse ruling requires that the “defendant must contemporaneously object to the statement, request an instruction that the jury disregard the statement if the objection is sustained, and move for a mistrial if an instruction to disregard is given.” Canada v. State, 547 S.W.3d 4, 22 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017, no pet.) (quoting Johnson v. State, No. 03-12-00006-CR, 2012 WL 1582236 , at *7 (Tex. App.— Austin May 4, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)). “‘[E]ven if an error’ stemming from improper jury argument ‘could not be cured’ by giving an inst

2020App. 1993)). “[E]ven if an error” stemming from improper jury argument “could not be cured” by giving an instruction to the jury, the defendant would still be required “to object and request a mistrial.” Mathis v. State, 67 S.W.3d 918, 926-27 (Tex. Crim.

2019Unkart v. State, 400 S.W.3d 94 , 98–99 (Tex. Crim.

2019See Unkart v. State, 400 S.W.3d 94, 99 (Tex. Crim.

2025See Lewis, 219 S.W.3d at 358 (stating double jeopardy is not “a means to protect against outrageous government conduct”); Ex parte Coleman, 350 S.W.3d 155, 160 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (“The impropriety of the prosecutor’s [cross- examination] was remedied by the mistrial.”); cf. Kennedy, 456 U.S. at 679 , 102 S. Ct. at 2091 (holding prosecutor, who referred to defendant as a “crook” in front of the jury, did not intend to cause a mistrial); Ex parte Aiken, No. 05-07-01125-CR, 2008 WL 444484 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 20, 2008, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publica