Daniel Lyne v. State
13-13-00313-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 17, 2015Background
- Appellant Daniel Lyne was indicted on two counts (indecency with a child; aggravated sexual assault of a child); the State dismissed the aggravated-sexual-assault count before trial and proceeded on indecency only.
- During voir dire the trial judge mistakenly read the indictment to include the dismissed aggravated-sexual-assault charge; the judge instructed the venire to disregard the comment.
- A courtroom docket sheet listing the dismissed aggravated-sexual-assault charge remained posted on the courtroom door during trial; the court told jurors to disregard it when noticed.
- During trial the prosecutor twice (and the court once earlier) referenced "sexual assault;" each time counsel objected, the prosecutor apologized (when applicable), and the court instructed the jury to disregard and struck the remarks.
- The jury convicted Lyne of indecency with a child; punishment was four years TDCJ and a $10,000 fine. Lyne moved for mistrial during trial and later for a new trial asserting prejudice from references to the dismissed charge and the posted docket sheet; both were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether references to the dismissed aggravated-sexual-assault charge required a mistrial | References were inflammatory per se, caused incurable prejudice, and cumulative error required mistrial | References were inadvertent/mistakes; curative instructions and prosecutor's apology cured any harm; evidence strong | Denied — no abuse of discretion; curative measures and strength of evidence rendered prejudice unlikely |
| Whether denial of motion for new trial was erroneous based on same references/posting | Repeated references and posted docket sheet prejudiced jury, warranting new trial | Trial court adequately cured error; docket-sheet objection not preserved; venire members who heard comments did not serve on jury | Denied — trial court did not abuse discretion; preserved record did not show substantial rights affected |
| Whether new jury panel was required | (asserted entitlement) | No authority or argument to support entitlement | Waived — appellant failed to brief or support the contention; issue forfeited |
Key Cases Cited
- Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (standard: mistrial review is abuse of discretion)
- Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (mistrial is extreme remedy; only for incurable prejudice)
- Archie v. State, 221 S.W.3d 695 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (three-factor balancing for mistrial: severity, curative measures, strength of evidence)
- Ramon v. State, 159 S.W.3d 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (applying harmless-error and mistrial standards)
- State v. Cabrera, 24 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2000) (repeated, deliberate bolstering of child-victim credibility can cause incurable prejudice)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (trial-court decision reviewed for zone of reasonable disagreement)
- Brown v. State, 907 S.W.2d 835 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (mistrial is abuse if less drastic means available)
- Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (factfinder exclusively decides witness credibility)
- Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (conflict reconciliation is province of factfinder)
- Herndon v. State, 215 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standards for trial court granting new trial; preservation issues)