jury to disregard presumption in Texas

2025See, e.g., Schule v. State, No 05-13-01200-CR, 2015 WL 1859040 , at *13–14, *16 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 22, 29 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding error harmless because if presumption-of-reasonableness instruction had been “properly given to the jury, it would have permitted the jury to disregard the presumption if it found [defendant] did not know or have reason to believe [the complainant] was attempting to murder him or [his son] at the time he used deadly force or that [defendant] provoked [the complainant]” and “[a] complete instruction . . . would have p

2023See Villarreal v. State, 453 S.W.3d 429 , 435–36 (Tex. Crim.

2024See Hollander, 414 S.W.3d at 751 ; see also Polk v. State, No. 13-18-00347- CR, 2019 WL 3721345 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Aug. 8, 2019, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding that this factor weighed against a finding of egregious harm because “[t]he omitted instruction would have 18 permitted the jury to disregard the presumption if it concluded, among other things, that Polk had no reason to believe that Ruiz was attempting to commit murder”).

2024See Enos v. State, 909 S.W.2d 293, 296 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, pet. dism’d) (noting collateral implication analysis “contemplates issues like the . . . error’s impact on sentencing”).

2024See Whitehead v. State, 437 S.W.3d 547, 553 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2014, pet. ref’d) (“Because the State did not emphasize the error or seek to benefit from it, this factor weighs in favor of a finding that the error was not harmful.”). 30 Third, any collateral implications from the trial court’s ruling were negated by the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury to disregard defense counsel’s argument, leaving the jury at liberty to consider defense counsel’s comment and Villanueva’s testimony.

2016See Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 119 (presence of overwhelming evidence supporting finding in question can be factor in evaluation of harmless error); Foreman v. State, No. 08-13-00042-CR, 2015 WL 129025 , at *5 (Tex. App.—El Paso Jan. 9, 2015, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (prosecutor’s argument to jury was harmless where prosecutor made similar argument later in closing arguments with no objection); Culton v. State, 95 S.W.3d 401, 406-07 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d) (error in sustaining State’s objection to appellant’s closing argument was cured because appellant ma

2016See Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 119 (presence of overwhelming evidence supporting finding in question can be factor in evaluation of harmless error); Foreman v. State, No. 08-13-00042-CR, 2015 WL 129025 , at *5 (Tex. App.—El Paso Jan. 9, 2015, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (prosecutor’s argument to jury was harmless where prosecutor made similar argument later in closing arguments with no objection); Culton v. State, 95 S.W.3d 401, 406-07 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d) (error in sustaining State’s objection to appellant’s closing argument was cured because appellant ma