Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
22 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2013–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Unkart, Rodney Galegreen2 sentences2026A party may request a mistrial after skipping the first two steps, but error is only preserved for appeal if “an instruction to disregard would not have cured . . . the harm flowing from the error.” Unkart v. State, 400 S.W.3d 94, 99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). 2025“A party may skip the first two steps and request a mistrial, but he will be entitled to one only if a timely 3 objection would not have prevented, and an instruction to disregard would not have cured, the harm flowing from the error.” Id. | 6 | 12 |
Young v. Stategreen2 sentences2017“A party may skip the first two steps and request a mistrial, but he will be entitled to one only if a timely objection would not have prevented, and an instruction to disregard would not have cured, the harm flowing from the error.” Id. 2014“A party may skip the first two steps and request a mistrial, but he will be entitled to one only if a timely objection would not have prevented, and an instruction to disregard would not have cured, the harm flowing from the error.” Id. at 99 . -3- 04-13-00462-CR “[A]n outburst from a bystander or witness ‘which interferes with the normal proceedings of a trial will not result in reversible error unless the defendant shows that a reasonable probability [exists] that the conduct interfered with the jury’s verdict.’” Coble, 330 S.W.3d at 292 (quoting Stahl v. State, 749 S.W.2d 826, 829 (Tex. Cr | 2 | 9 |
Brewer, Sean Christophergreen2 sentences2021App. 1998) (holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s motion for mistrial where a witness’s comment that the appellant had “past violence” was not a concrete reference to an extraneous offense, but merely vague speculation); Jackson v. State, 495 S.W.3d 398, 421 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. ref’d) (holding testimony by defendant’s girlfriend that defendant the first two steps and request a mistrial, but he will be entitled to one only if a timely objection would not have prevented, and an instruction to disregard would not have cured, the harm 2020App. 2013); see Brewer v. State, 367 S.W.3d 251, 253 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Thomas Pryer Keith v. State of Texasgreen1 sentence2021App. 2012) (“The appellant did not request a curative instruction before moving for a mistrial—a choice that forfeited appellate relief for an error that could have been cured by such an instruction.”). 14 “had a record from Louisiana” did not warrant mistrial because the trial court immediately instructed the jury to disregard the testimony); Keith v. State, 384 S.W.3d 452, 461 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2012, pet. ref’d) (concluding that witness’s statement that appellant was on parole “was adequately addressed by a sustained objection and an instruction to disregard” because the statement was “at | 1 | 1 |
Walter Louis Jackson Junior v. Stategreen1 sentence2021App. 1998) (holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s motion for mistrial where a witness’s comment that the appellant had “past violence” was not a concrete reference to an extraneous offense, but merely vague speculation); Jackson v. State, 495 S.W.3d 398, 421 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. ref’d) (holding testimony by defendant’s girlfriend that defendant the first two steps and request a mistrial, but he will be entitled to one only if a timely objection would not have prevented, and an instruction to disregard would not have cured, the harm | 1 | 1 |
Jenkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2018App. 2013) (holding that a motion for mistrial alone is sufficient to preserve error if a timely objection would not have prevented, and an instruction to disregard would not have cured, the harm flowing from the error). 6 residual prejudice remains after less drastic alternatives have been explored.” Jenkins v. State, 493 S.W.3d 583, 612 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Ashton Joel Carmen v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 115 ; Carmen v. State, 358 S.W.3d 285, 300 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
Stahl v. Stategreen1 sentence2014“A party may skip the first two steps and request a mistrial, but he will be entitled to one only if a timely objection would not have prevented, and an instruction to disregard would not have cured, the harm flowing from the error.” Id. at 99 . -3- 04-13-00462-CR “[A]n outburst from a bystander or witness ‘which interferes with the normal proceedings of a trial will not result in reversible error unless the defendant shows that a reasonable probability [exists] that the conduct interfered with the jury’s verdict.’” Coble, 330 S.W.3d at 292 (quoting Stahl v. State, 749 S.W.2d 826, 829 (Tex. Cr | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Allen v. United States
green
2 sentences2015In a case where a timely objection would not have 3 Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896). - 12 - prevented the error and an instruction to disregard would not have cured the harm flowing from the error, a party may skip the first two steps and request a mistrial. 2015In a case where a timely objection would not have 3 Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896). - 12 - prevented the error and an instruction to disregard would not have cured the harm flowing from the error, a party may skip the first two steps and request a mistrial. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Ocon v. State
green
1 sentence2018App. 2016) (citing Ocon v. State, 284 S.W.3d 880 , 884–85 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Wesbrook v. State
green
1 sentence2015Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 115 ; Carmen v. State, 358 S.W.3d 285, 300 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Coble v. State
green
1 sentence2014“A party may skip the first two steps and request a mistrial, but he will be entitled to one only if a timely objection would not have prevented, and an instruction to disregard would not have cured, the harm flowing from the error.” Id. at 99 . -3- 04-13-00462-CR “[A]n outburst from a bystander or witness ‘which interferes with the normal proceedings of a trial will not result in reversible error unless the defendant shows that a reasonable probability [exists] that the conduct interfered with the jury’s verdict.’” Coble, 330 S.W.3d at 292 (quoting Stahl v. State, 749 S.W.2d 826, 829 (Tex. Cr | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.