Arellano objection in Texas

2025The trial court also instructed the jury in the charge that it “must not consider, discuss, nor relate any matters not in evidence.” See Hawkins, 135 S.W.3d at 84 (analysis of this factor should consider 8 See also Griffin v. State, 571 S.W.3d 404, 418 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. ref’d) (prosecutor’s comment regarding conspiracy theory of responsibility was not so severe as to warrant mistrial where prosecutor’s attempt to define conspiracy during closing argument was interrupted by defense counsel’s objection). 10 instructions given in jury charge); Griffin, 571 S.W.3d at 419 (c

2009See id. ("An appellate court reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion for mistrial must utilize an abuse of discretion standard of review."). "[T]he question of whether a mistrial should have been granted involves most, if not all, of the same considerations that attend a harm analysis." Hawkins, 135 S.W.3d at 77 .

2009See id. ("An appellate court reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion for mistrial must utilize an abuse of discretion standard of review."). "[T]he question of whether a mistrial should have been granted involves most, if not all, of the same considerations that attend a harm analysis." Hawkins, 135 S.W.3d at 77 .

2009See id. ("An appellate court reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion for mistrial must utilize an abuse of discretion standard of review."). "[T]he question of whether a mistrial should have been granted involves most, if not all, of the same considerations that attend a harm analysis." Hawkins , 135 S.W.3d at 77 .

2025See Morgan, 675 S.W.2d at 732 .

2025See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Tex. Crim.

2025The trial court also instructed the jury in the charge that it “must not consider, discuss, nor relate any matters not in evidence.” See Hawkins, 135 S.W.3d at 84 (analysis of this factor should consider 8 See also Griffin v. State, 571 S.W.3d 404, 418 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. ref’d) (prosecutor’s comment regarding conspiracy theory of responsibility was not so severe as to warrant mistrial where prosecutor’s attempt to define conspiracy during closing argument was interrupted by defense counsel’s objection). 10 instructions given in jury charge); Griffin, 571 S.W.3d at 419 (c

2025The trial court also instructed the jury in the charge that it “must not consider, discuss, nor relate any matters not in evidence.” See Hawkins, 135 S.W.3d at 84 (analysis of this factor should consider 8 See also Griffin v. State, 571 S.W.3d 404, 418 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. ref’d) (prosecutor’s comment regarding conspiracy theory of responsibility was not so severe as to warrant mistrial where prosecutor’s attempt to define conspiracy during closing argument was interrupted by defense counsel’s objection). 10 instructions given in jury charge); Griffin, 571 S.W.3d at 419 (c

2018“Weighing the advantages and disadvantages of calling a particular witness to testify is a matter usually left within the province of trial counsel’s discretion.” Ex parte Ruiz, 543 S.W.3d 805, 821 (Tex. Crim.