prosecutorial misconduct claim in Texas

2020See Joyner v. State, 548 S.W.3d 731, 739 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. ref’d) (“We have held that a claim of prosecutorial misconduct may be forfeited if not raised below.”); see also Real Prop.

2020See Joyner v. State, 548 S.W.3d 731, 739 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. ref’d) (“We have held that a claim of prosecutorial misconduct may be forfeited if not raised below.”); see also Real Prop.

2018Penry v. State, 903 S.W.2d 715, 764 (Tex. Crim.

2018Penry v. State, 903 S.W.2d 715, 764 (Tex. Crim.

2024Although Rodriguez admits he did not object “to each instance[,]” he argues that the cumulative effect of the prosecutorial misconduct during the trial amounts to “deprivation of fundamental fairness and due process of law[.]” “A due-process, fair-trial objection is required . . . to preserve a complaint on appeal that the prosecutor engaged in serious and continuing prosecutorial 26 misconduct so as to effectively deprive a defendant of due process or a fair trial.” Mullinax v. State, No. 02-14-00237-CR, 2015 WL 3422531 , *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 28, 2015, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not desig

2013See Stokes v. State, 277 S.W.3d 20, 21 (Tex. Crim.App.2009) (addressing presentment requirement).