jury a limiting instruction in Texas

2023See Day, 342 S.W.3d at 199 ; see also In re Commitment of Alvarado, No. 09-13-00217-CV, 2014 WL 1285136 , at *11 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Mar. 27, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

2021In re Commitment of Day, 342 S.W.3d 193 , 198–99 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011, pet. denied); see also Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757, 771 (Tex. 2003) (stating that unless the record demonstrates otherwise, appellate courts must presume the jury followed the trial court’s instructions); In re Commitment of Alvarado, No. 09-13-00217-CV, 2014 WL 1285136 , at *11 (Tex. App—Beaumont Mar. 27, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

2011See Garcia v. State , 201 S.W.3d 695, 704 ( Tex.Crim.App . 2006).

2011See Garcia v. State, 201 S.W.3d 695, 704 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006).

2024App. 2011) (noting that jury is presumed to have understood and followed trial court’s jury-charge instructions absent evidence to the contrary); see also Lane v. State, 933 S.W.2d 504, 520 (Tex. Crim.

2018See Lane v. State, 933 S.W.2d 504, 520 (Tex. Crim.

2025See Gamboa v. State, 296 S.W.3d 574, 581 (Tex. Crim.

2024With respect to factors (3), (4) and (5), although there may have been a possibility that the jury would be improperly influenced or confused by the extraneous drug transaction referenced in the Facebook messages which took place about a year prior to the execution of the search warrant, the trial court gave the jury a limiting instruction before the evidence was mentioned during the trial, and then included another limiting instruction in the court’s charge, so any such risk was 13 minimized. 1 See Majors v. State, 554 S.W.3d 802, 809 (Tex. App.—Waco 2018, no pet.) (citing Gamboa v. State, 29

2020See Renteria v. State, 206 S.W.3d 689, 707 (Tex. Crim.

2020See Renteria, 206 S.W.3d at 707 .

2020See Delgado v. State, 235 S.W.3d 244, 251 (Tex. Crim.

2015See Delgado v. State, 235 S.W.3d 244, 251 (Tex. Crim.

2008The trial court gave the jury a limiting instruction regarding C.J.’s testimony, instructing them to “consider her testimony only so far as it indicates knowledge or absence of mistake on behalf of the defendant.” Rule 404(b) “It is a fundamental tenet of our criminal justice system that an accused may be tried only for the offense for which he is charged and not for being a criminal generally.” Pavlacka v. State, 892 S.W.2d 897, 904 (Tex. Crim.

2008The trial court gave the jury a limiting instruction regarding C.J.'s testimony, instructing them to "consider her testimony only so far as it indicates knowledge or absence of mistake on behalf of the defendant." Rule 404(b) "It is a fundamental tenet of our criminal justice system that an accused may be tried only for the offense for which he is charged and not for being a criminal generally." Pavlacka v. State , 892 S.W.2d 897, 904 (Tex. Crim.

2011In our harm analysis in Smith, we analyzed any possible harm in light of Phillips‘s four purposes of the election requirement and held that the trial court‘s failure to 3 In Isenhower, at least twice prior to the introduction of certain evidence, the trial court gave the jury a limiting instruction to consider testimony regarding extraneous acts for the limited purpose of determining the previous relationship between the appellant and the complainant. 261 S.W.3d at 176 .

2011In Isenhower , at least twice prior to the introduction of certain evidence, the trial court gave the jury a limiting instruction to consider testimony regarding extraneous acts for the limited purpose of determining the previous relationship between the appellant and the complainant. 261 S.W.3d at 176 .

2026See In re Commitment of Young, 410 S.W.3d 542, 557 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, no pet.).

2024With respect to factors (3), (4) and (5), although there may have been a possibility that the jury would be improperly influenced or confused by the extraneous drug transaction referenced in the Facebook messages which took place about a year prior to the execution of the search warrant, the trial court gave the jury a limiting instruction before the evidence was mentioned during the trial, and then included another limiting instruction in the court’s charge, so any such risk was 13 minimized. 1 See Majors v. State, 554 S.W.3d 802, 809 (Tex. App.—Waco 2018, no pet.) (citing Gamboa v. State, 29

2024And here, like in Harris, the trial court gave the jury a limiting instruction,11 which “minimized any risk that the jury would have considered the extraneous bad act for an improper purpose or given it undue weight.” Id. at 338; see Taylor v. State, 332 S.W.3d 483, 492 (Tex. Crim.

2023See Wilson, 90 S.W.3d at 393-94 ; see also TEX.

2023“Without evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the jury followed the trial court’s instruction.” Id. (citing Walker v. State, 300 S.W.3d 836, 850 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref’d)).

2023Moreover, they had both experienced similar 3 See Alvarez v. State, 491 S.W.3d 362, 371 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. ref’d) (explaining that when victim’s testimony is the only direct evidence of sexual assault of a child, and if the defendant impeaches the victim’s credibility, it becomes a “he said, she said” case).

2022See Thrift v. State, 176 S.W.3d 221, 224 (Tex. Crim.

2021See id.; see also Garcia, 614 S.W.3d at 757; Dixon, 201 S.W.3d 731, 734 (Tex.Crim.App 2006). 14 Appellant, however, contends that he was nevertheless harmed by the admission of the second incident of sexual abuse because the trial court did not give the jury a limiting instruction explaining that it could only consider the second incident for the purposes expressed in Article 38.37.

2021In re Commitment of Day, 342 S.W.3d 193 , 198–99 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011, pet. denied); see also Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757, 771 (Tex. 2003) (stating that unless the record demonstrates otherwise, appellate courts must presume the jury followed the trial court’s instructions); In re Commitment of Alvarado, No. 09-13-00217-CV, 2014 WL 1285136 , at *11 (Tex. App—Beaumont Mar. 27, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

2020See Elizondo v. State, 487 S.W.3d 185, 208 (Tex. Crim.

2019App. P. 33.1. 28 Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504, 510 (Tex. Crim.

2014See Hammock, 46 S.W.3d at 895 (jury instructions, if requested, should be given when evidence is admitted and then again at final jury charge). –6– When we find error in the jury charge to which the appellant did not object, as here, we will reverse only if the error was so egregious and created such harm that the appellant did not have a fair and impartial trial.

2014Cf. Irielle v. State, 441 S.W.3d 868, 879-80 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet. h.) (concluding that the trial court did not err by giving a limiting instruction that failed to track the language of Rule 404(b) when the defendant never requested a limiting instruction).

2014See Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457, 471 (Tex. Crim.

2013See Williams, 273 S.W.3d at 230 .