prompt instruction in Texas

2025See Ovalle, 13 S.W.3d at 783 ; Jackson v. State, 287 S.W.3d 346, 354 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (“Unless clearly calculated to inflame the minds of the jury or of such damning character as to make it impossible to remove the harmful impression from the jurors’ minds, a 12 witness’s reference to a defendant’s criminal history, standing alone, generally is cured by a prompt instruction to disregard.”).

2025“Ordinarily, a prompt instruction to disregard will cure error associated with an improper question and answer, even one regarding extraneous offenses.” Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774, 783 (Tex. Crim.

2023App. 2000) (per curiam) (“Ordinarily, a prompt instruction to disregard will cure error associated with an improper question and answer, even one regarding extraneous offenses.”); Kemp v. State, 846 S.W.2d 289, 308 (Tex. Crim.

2018Generally, “a prompt instruction to disregard by the trial court will cure error associated with improper testimony referring to or implying extraneous offenses, unless it appears the evidence was so clearly calculated to inflame the minds of the jury or is of such a damning character as to suggest it would be impossible to remove the harmful 4 impression from the jurors’ minds.” Hebert v. State, 489 S.W.3d 15, 20 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (citing Kemp v. State, 846 S.W.2d 289, 308 (Tex. Crim.

2024On appeal, the Court explained that a prompt instruction to disregard usually cures a witness’s reference to an extraneous offense, except when the reference is “clearly calculated to inflame the minds of the jury” or 8 is “of such damning character as to suggest it would be impossible to remove the harmful impression from the jurors’ minds.” Id.

2024Analysis “A witness’s inadvertent reference to an extraneous offense is generally cured by a prompt instruction to disregard.” Id.

2019“Only in extreme circumstances, where the prejudice is incurable, will a mistrial be required.” Id. - 14 - 04-18-00555-CR “Ordinarily, a prompt instruction to disregard will cure error associated with an improper question and answer, even one regarding extraneous offenses.” Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774, 783 (Tex. Crim.

2017“A mistrial is a device used to halt trial proceedings when error is so prejudicial that expenditure of further time and expense would be wasteful and futile.”54 “We review a trial court’s denial of a mistrial for an abuse of discretion.”55 “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.”56 “The ruling must be upheld if it was within the zone of reasonable disagreement.”57 A mistrial is “appropriate for a narrow class of highly prejudicial and incurable errors”58 and is

2025Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 115 (Tex. Crim.

2012See id. (holding instructions to jury are generally considered sufficient to cure improprieties that occur during trial); Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774, 783 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (“Ordinarily, a prompt instruction to disregard will cure error associated with an improper question and answer....”); Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 115 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (holding that in most instances, instruction to disregard remarks will cure any error).

2024“A witness’s inadvertent reference to an extraneous offense is generally cured by a prompt instruction to disregard. . . . a mistrial should be granted only in cases where the reference was clearly calculated to inflame the minds of the jury or was of such damning character as to suggest it would be impossible to remove the harmful impression from the jurors’ minds.” Young v. State, 283 S.W.3d 854, 878 (Tex. Crim.

2023“A witness’s inadvertent reference to an extraneous offense is generally cured by a prompt instruction to disregard.” Young v. State, 283 S.W.3d 854, 878 (Tex. Crim.

2023“The court of criminal appeals has recognized that ‘[o]rdinarily, a prompt instruction to disregard will cure error associated with an improper question and answer.’” Id. (quoting Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774, 783 (Tex. Crim.

2022“Ordinarily, a prompt instruction to disregard will cure error associated with an improper question and answer.” Id. (quoting Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774, 783 (Tex. Crim.

2015Gardner v. State, 730 S.W.2d 675, 696 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), cer t. denied, 484 U.S. 905 , 108 S.Ct. 248 , 98 L.Ed.2d 206 (1987); Kemp v. State, 846 S.W.2d 289, 308 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), ce rt. denied, 508 U.S. 918 , 113 S.Ct. 2361 , 124 L.Ed.2d 268 (1993); Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774, 783 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (''Ordinarily, a prompt instruction to disregard will cure error associated with an improper question and answer”); Barney v. State, 698 S.W.2d 114, 124-25 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (holding that a witness’s answer that a victim did not like the defendant because "he - was an ex-con,” which vio

1997See, e.g., Long v. State, 823 S.W.2d 259, 269-70 (Tex.Crim.App.1991)(holding that even if a direct comment were not invited, it was cured by an instruction), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1224 , 112 S.Ct. 3042 , 120 L.Ed.2d 910 (1992); Jackson v. State, 745 S.W.2d 4, 15 (Tex.Crim.App.)(holding that a comment was at best an indirect remark on the defendant’s failure to testify and that it was cured by an instruction), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1241 , 108 S.Ct. 2916 , 101 L.Ed.2d 947 (1988); Rougeau v. State, 738 S.W.2d 651, 669 (Tex.Crim.App.1987)(holding that the comment in question was not a comment on

2015The instruction and Ate’s testimony cured the error A trial court’s prompt instruction to disregard generally cures error to a witness’s reference to the defendant’s past conviction.443 An “uninvited and unembellished reference to appellant’s prior incarceration—although inadmissible—was not so inflammatory as to undermine the efficacy of the trial court’s instruction to disregard.”444 Instructions to disregard generally cure improprieties that occur during trial because courts presume that the jury will follow them.445 440 (RRIV-102). 441 (RRIV-103). 442 (RRVI-286). 443 See Kemp v. State, 846

2012See id. (holding instructions to jury are generally considered sufficient to cure improprieties that occur during trial); Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774, 783 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (“Ordinarily, a prompt instruction to disregard will cure error associated with an improper question and answer....”); Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 115 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (holding that in most instances, instruction to disregard remarks will cure any error).

2023See Ladd, 3 S.W.3d at 571 ; Phillips v. State, 130 S.W.3d 343, 347 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) aff’d, 193 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. Crim.

2013See Phillips v. State, 130 S.W.3d 343, 356 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d). ―Only offensive or flagrant error warrants reversal when there has been an instruction to disregard . . . .‖ Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 116 (Tex. Crim.

2020It is irrelevant … .” The trial court instructed the State to “wrap it up and ask him whether he had enough information.” The bench conference concluded, and the State asked James whether he had - 14 - 04-18-00564-CR enough information to forward the case to law enforcement for prosecution, and James answered, “Yes.” Even assuming, without deciding, that James’s testimony was improperly admitted, “a prompt instruction to disregard will ordinarily cure the prejudicial effect and the jury is presumed to follow the trial court’s instruction to disregard the improperly admitted evidence in the abs

2019Even assuming, without deciding, that the evidence was improperly admitted, “a prompt instruction to disregard will ordinarily cure the prejudicial effect and the jury is presumed to follow the trial court’s instruction to disregard the improperly admitted evidence in the absence of evidence indicating the members of the jury failed to do so.” State v. Boyd, 202 S.W.3d 393, 402 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. ref’d); see also Thrift v. State, 176 S.W.3d 221, 224 (Tex. Crim.

2016See Nobles v. State, 843 S.W.2d 503, 514 (Tex. Crim.

2016See Ladd, 3 S.W.3d at 571 (instruction to disregard cured witness’s improper reference to defendant’s multiple juvenile arrests); Kemp v. State, 846 S.W.2d 289, 308 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (“We find the uninvited and unembellished reference to appellant’s prior incarceration — although .inadmissible — was not so inflammatory as to undermine the efficacy of the trial court’s instruction to disregard.”); Nobles v. State, 843 S.W.2d 503, 514 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (witness’s statement that defendant “didn’t want to go back to prison” cured by prompt instruction to disregard); Gardner v. State, 730 S.W.2

2013For example, in Tennard v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held error was cured by a prompt instruction to the jury to disregard a State witness’s unresponsive comment that referenced a prior offense. 802 S.W.2d 678 , 684−85 (Tex. Crim.

2010App. 2000) (holding that a prompt instruction to disregard will usually cure error associated with an improper question and answer, even one regarding extraneous offenses); Tennard v. State , 802 S.W.2d 678, 685 (Tex. Crim.

2019See id. (holding trial court’s instruction to disregard the witness’s statements about the defendant’s “past anger” and “violence” cured any error); Kipp v. State, 876 S.W.2d 330, 339 (Tex. Crim.

2016App. 2009); Kipp v. State, 876 S.W.2d 330, 339 (Tex. Crim.

2010Although a prompt instruction to disregard will cure almost any improper argument, see Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 357 (Tex. Crim.

2010Although a prompt instruction to disregard will cure almost any' improper argument, see Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 357 (Tex.Crim.App.1995), we note that the trial court did not instruct the jury to disregard the comment here.

2020App. 1992); see also Fuller, 827 S.W.2d at 926 (stating that generally, when a witness references a defendant’s prior incarceration, “a prompt instruction to disregard cures the error”).

2019App. 2000) (per curiam) (citing Fuller v. State, 827 S.W.2d 919, 926 (Tex. Crim.

2019As to the second factor, generally a trial court’s prompt instruction to disregard will cure any error associated with improper closing argument, “unless it appears the argument was so clearly calculated to inflame the minds of the jury or is of such a damning character as to suggest it would be impossible to remove the harmful impression from the juror’s minds.” Crayton v. State, 463 S.W.3d 531, 535 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (citing Logan v. State, 698 S.W.2d 680, 683-84 (Tex. Crim.

2014A prompt instruction to disregard by the trial court will generally cure any error associated with an improper jury argument “unless it appears the argument was so clearly calculated to inflame the minds of the jury or is of such a damning character as to suggest it would be impossible to remove the harmful impression from the juror’s minds.” Torres v. State, 424 S.W.3d 245, 261 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d) (citing Logan v. State, 698 S.W.2d 680 , 683–84 (Tex. Crim.

2015Gardner v. State, 730 S.W.2d 675, 696 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), cer t. denied, 484 U.S. 905 , 108 S.Ct. 248 , 98 L.Ed.2d 206 (1987); Kemp v. State, 846 S.W.2d 289, 308 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), ce rt. denied, 508 U.S. 918 , 113 S.Ct. 2361 , 124 L.Ed.2d 268 (1993); Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774, 783 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (''Ordinarily, a prompt instruction to disregard will cure error associated with an improper question and answer”); Barney v. State, 698 S.W.2d 114, 124-25 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (holding that a witness’s answer that a victim did not like the defendant because "he - was an ex-con,” which vio

2015App. 2000) (“Ordinarily, a prompt instruction to disregard will cure error associated with an improper question and answer”); Barney v. State, 698 S.W.2d 114 , 124–25 (Tex. Crim.

2021See Green, 554 S.W.3d at 790 ; see also Herrero v. State, 124 S.W.3d 827, 836 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (“A prompt instruction to disregard will ordinarily cure error associated with an improper question and answer regarding extraneous offenses.”).

2021See Green, 554 S.W.3d at 790 ; see also Herrero v. State, 124 S.W.3d 827, 836 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (“A prompt instruction to disregard will ordinarily cure error associated with an improper question and answer regarding extraneous offenses.”).

2020It is irrelevant … .” The trial court instructed the State to “wrap it up and ask him whether he had enough information.” The bench conference concluded, and the State asked James whether he had - 14 - 04-18-00564-CR enough information to forward the case to law enforcement for prosecution, and James answered, “Yes.” Even assuming, without deciding, that James’s testimony was improperly admitted, “a prompt instruction to disregard will ordinarily cure the prejudicial effect and the jury is presumed to follow the trial court’s instruction to disregard the improperly admitted evidence in the abs

2019Even assuming, without deciding, that the evidence was improperly admitted, “a prompt instruction to disregard will ordinarily cure the prejudicial effect and the jury is presumed to follow the trial court’s instruction to disregard the improperly admitted evidence in the absence of evidence indicating the members of the jury failed to do so.” State v. Boyd, 202 S.W.3d 393, 402 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. ref’d); see also Thrift v. State, 176 S.W.3d 221, 224 (Tex. Crim.

2011App. 2000) (“Ordinarily, a prompt instruction to disregard will cure error associated with an improper question and answer, even one regarding extraneous offenses.”); Ladd, 3 S.W.3d at 571 (concluding an instruction to disregard cured witness’s improper reference to defendant’s multiple juvenile arrests); Whitaker v. State, 977 S.W.2d 595, 600 (Tex. Crim.

2007"A prompt instruction to disregard will usually cure any prejudice resulting from improper testimony regarding an extraneous offense, even if given in violation of a motion in limine." Austin v. State , 222 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. filed); Rogers v. State , 200 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd); Martinez v. State , 844 S.W.2d 279, 284 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1992, pet. ref'd) (extraneous offense in violation of motion in limine); see also Whitaker v. State , 977 S.W.2d 595, 600 (Tex. Crim.

2024Later, the Texas Supreme Court further explained, Subject to good-faith pleading requirements, when a litigant . . . “contends that a monetary sanction award precludes access to the court,” the court “must either (1) provide that the sanction is payable only at a date that coincides with or follows entry of a final order terminating the litigation; or (2) make[ ] express written findings, after a prompt hearing, as to why the award does not have such a preclusive effect.” In re Casey, 589 S.W.3d 850 , 855 (Tex. 2019) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting Braden, 811 S.W.2d at 929 ).

2024Under the Braden process, subject to good-faith pleading requirements, when a litigant “contends that a monetary sanction award precludes access to the court,” the trial court “must either (1) provide that the sanction is payable only at a date that coincides with or follows entry of a final order terminating the litigation; or (2) make[] express written findings, after a prompt hearing, as to why the award does –2– not have such a preclusive effect.” Braden, 811 S.W.2d at 929 (quoting Thomas v. Cap.

2026See Hawkins, 135 S.W.3d at 76 ; Goodwin v. State, 91 S.W.3d 912 , 916–17 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, no pet.) (holding that a prompt instruction to disregard will cure the harm of an improper jury argument).

2013Hawkins, 135 S.W.3d at 77 . “[O]rdinarily, a prompt instruction to disregard will cure error associated with an improper question and answer.” Simpson v. State, 119 S.W.3d 262, 272 (Tex. Crim.

2019And “ordinarily, a prompt instruction to disregard will cure error associated with an improper question and answer.” Id.

2019Here, immediately upon Garcia’s objection, the trial court held a brief bench conference, sustained Garcia’s objection, and instructed the jury to “disregard the last questions and any part of that response to that question.” This prompt instruction to disregard cured error, if any, associated with the State’s question and Detective Andrews’s answer. 16 See id.

2025See Ovalle, 13 S.W.3d at 783 ; Jackson v. State, 287 S.W.3d 346, 354 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (“Unless clearly calculated to inflame the minds of the jury or of such damning character as to make it impossible to remove the harmful impression from the jurors’ minds, a 12 witness’s reference to a defendant’s criminal history, standing alone, generally is cured by a prompt instruction to disregard.”).

2025See Ovalle, 13 S.W.3d at 783 ; Jackson v. State, 287 S.W.3d 346, 354 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (“Unless clearly calculated to inflame the minds of the jury or of such damning character as to make it impossible to remove the harmful impression from the jurors’ minds, a 12 witness’s reference to a defendant’s criminal history, standing alone, generally is cured by a prompt instruction to disregard.”).

2014Therefore, the trial court successfully cured any harm caused by Corporal Medlin’s unresponsive and unsolicited answer regarding an extraneous offense by instructing the jury to disregard the statement. 9 See Hackett v. State, 9 Similarly, in its charge, the trial court instructed the jury to “not consider, discuss, or relate any matters not in evidence.” 10 160 S.W.3d 588, 592 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, pet. ref’d) (“Texas courts have consistently held that the prejudicial effect of such indirect suggestions can be cured by an instruction to disregard.”); Wilson v. State, 90 S.W.3d 391, 395 (Tex.

2010Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774, 783 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Hackett v. State, 160 S.W.3d 588, 592 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005, pet. ref'd); accord Marshall v. State, 210 S.W.3d 618, 628-29 (Tex.Crim.App.2006).

2014Therefore, the trial court successfully cured any harm caused by Corporal Medlin’s unresponsive and unsolicited answer regarding an extraneous offense by instructing the jury to disregard the statement. 9 See Hackett v. State, 9 Similarly, in its charge, the trial court instructed the jury to “not consider, discuss, or relate any matters not in evidence.” 10 160 S.W.3d 588, 592 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, pet. ref’d) (“Texas courts have consistently held that the prejudicial effect of such indirect suggestions can be cured by an instruction to disregard.”); Wilson v. State, 90 S.W.3d 391, 395 (Tex.

2014“Generally, a prompt instruction to disregard will cure a witness’s inadvertent reference to an extraneous offense.” Wilson v. State, 90 S.W.3d 391 , 395 3 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, no pet.).2 Such an instruction is presumed efficacious.

2024To address the harsh, inequitable scenario that may arise when the imposition of monetary sanctions threatens a party’s continuation of –5– the litigation, Braden adopted the procedure used in Thomas v. Capital Security Services, Inc., 836 F.2d 866 (5th Cir. 1988), which provides: [I]f a litigant contends that a monetary sanction award precludes access to the court, the [trial] judge must either (1) provide that the sanction is payable only at a date that coincides with or follows entry of a final order terminating the litigation; or (2) makes express written findings, after a prompt hearing,

2014Servs., Inc., 836 F.2d 866, 882 (5th Cir.1988)). [I]f a litigant contends that a monetary sanction award precludes access to the court, the district judge must either (1) provide that the sanction is payable only at a date that coincides with or follows entry of a final order terminating the litigation; or (2) make[ ] express written findings, after a prompt hearing, as to why the award does not have such a preclusive effect.

2015“A prompt instruction to disregard will usually cure any prejudice resulting from improper testimony regarding an extraneous offense, even if given in violation of a motion in limine.” Austin v. State, 222 S.W.3d 801, 815 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d).

2007"A prompt instruction to disregard will usually cure any prejudice resulting from improper testimony regarding an extraneous offense, even if given in violation of a motion in limine." Austin v. State , 222 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. filed); Rogers v. State , 200 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd); Martinez v. State , 844 S.W.2d 279, 284 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1992, pet. ref'd) (extraneous offense in violation of motion in limine); see also Whitaker v. State , 977 S.W.2d 595, 600 (Tex. Crim.