Archie v. State
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 796
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Archie was convicted of murder and sentenced to 40 years' imprisonment.
- The Tenth Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, remanding for mistrial dismissal due to the trial court denying a mistrial.
- During closing, the prosecutor argued about a jailhouse kite, prompting defense objections and a bench conference.
- The trial court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard the argument; mistrial was denied.
- On discretionary review, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals, addressing whether the prosecutor's remarks were an improper comment on Archie’s failure to testify and whether a mistrial denial was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the prosecutor's closing argument an improper comment on failure to testify? | Archie contends the remarks and accompanying conduct violated his rights. | The State argues the remarks were a permissible inference from record evidence. | Improper to the extent it commented on failure to testify |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial under Mosley factors? | The improper argument prejudiced the jury beyond cure, warranting mistrial. | The trial court’s curative steps and strong evidence supported denial of mistrial. | No abuse; denial of mistrial upheld; remand for remaining issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Bird v. State, 527 S.W.2d 891 (Tex.Crim.App.1975) (jury may infer comment on failure to testify when coupled with argument and actions)
- Hicks v. State, 525 S.W.2d 177 (Tex.Crim.App.1975) (distinguishes improper commentary with outside-record inference)
- Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (Mosley factors for evaluating mistrial abuse after improper argument)
- Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (framework for assessing whether mistrial is warranted)
- Gardner v. State, 730 S.W.2d 675 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (curative instructions presumed effective)
- Cruz v. State, 225 S.W.3d 546 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (controlling standard on self-incrimination and related objections)
- Canales v. State, 98 S.W.3d 690 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (self-incrimination protections in jury arguments)
- Bustamante v. State, 48 S.W.3d 761 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (standards on improper jury arguments and mistrial considerations)
- Smith v. State, 332 S.W.3d 425 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (evidentiary corroboration standards and accompanying inference rules)