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.
9 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rojas v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See id. at 250-51 ; Sperling v. State, 924 S.W.2d 722, 724-25 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1996, pet. ref'd) (reference by State’s witness to defendant’s prior incarceration during direct examination did not require mistrial). 2012See id. at 250–51; Sperling v. State, 924 S.W.2d 722 , 724–25 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1996, pet. ref’d) (reference by State’s witness to defendant’s prior incarceration during direct examination did not require mistrial). | 3 | 3 |
Sperling v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See id. at 250-51 ; Sperling v. State, 924 S.W.2d 722, 724-25 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1996, pet. ref'd) (reference by State’s witness to defendant’s prior incarceration during direct examination did not require mistrial). 2012See id. at 250–51; Sperling v. State, 924 S.W.2d 722 , 724–25 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1996, pet. ref’d) (reference by State’s witness to defendant’s prior incarceration during direct examination did not require mistrial). | 2 | 3 |
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 |
Kirkland v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Rojas, 986 S.W.2d at 250-51 ; Sperling v. State, 924 S.W.2d 722, 724-25 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1996, pet. ref'd) (reference by State's witness to defendant's prior incarceration during direct examination did not require mistrial); Rudd v. State, 921 S.W.2d 370, 373-74 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1996, pet. ref'd) (reference by State's expert witness to defendant's arrest at age seven during direct examination did not require mistrial); Kirkland v. State, 786 S.W.2d 557, 562 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990, no pet.) (reference by police officer to defendant's failure to appear in court for traffic citations d | 1 | 1 |
Rudd v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Rojas, 986 S.W.2d at 250-51 ; Sperling v. State, 924 S.W.2d 722, 724-25 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1996, pet. ref'd) (reference by State's witness to defendant's prior incarceration during direct examination did not require mistrial); Rudd v. State, 921 S.W.2d 370, 373-74 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1996, pet. ref'd) (reference by State's expert witness to defendant's arrest at age seven during direct examination did not require mistrial); Kirkland v. State, 786 S.W.2d 557, 562 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990, no pet.) (reference by police officer to defendant's failure to appear in court for traffic citations d | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Young v. State
green
2 sentences2022Id. 2021However, the class of events that require a mistrial is smaller than that for which a sustained objection or an instruction to disregard will suffice to prevent or correct the harm.” Id. | 3 | 2006–2022 |
Marin v. State
green
1 sentence2016A grant of a motion for mistrial should 25 Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 , 281–82 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Jones v. State
green
2 sentences1985This argument is similar to one made in Jones, supra. In Jones, supra at 592 , the State argued: “My dear fellow, you needn’t have worried one minute because Dusty Miller [the defense attorney] will take care of everything and furnish the evidence.” In reversing the conviction, despite a sustained objection and an instruction to disregard, we held: “The argument evidently had the purpose of pointing out the man who had sufficient mentality to manufacture the evidence that would bring into the case a legal defense.” Jones, supra. The argument in the instant case, like the one in Jones, supra, w 1985This argument is similar to one made in Jones, supra. In Jones, supra at 592 , the State argued: “My dear fellow, you needn’t have worried one minute because Dusty Miller [the defense attorney] will take care of everything and furnish the evidence.” In reversing the conviction, despite a sustained objection and an instruction to disregard, we held: “The argument evidently had the purpose of pointing out the man who had sufficient mentality to manufacture the evidence that would bring into the case a legal defense.” Jones, supra. The argument in the instant case, like the one in Jones, supra, w | 1 | 1985–1985 |