Delore Guidry, Jr. v. State, 14-16-00564-CR

Delore Guidry, Jr. was tried on two consolidated indictments for indecency with a child by contact (second-degree felonies); two minor complainants testified about sexual touching in 2013–2014.
Jury found Guidry guilty in each case; trial court sentenced him to four years’ confinement on each count, to run concurrently.
At punishment, both sides reurged guilt-phase evidence; defense urged the jury to impose a low sentence within the 2–20 year range, noting Guidry had no priors and was ineligible for probation.
During the State’s punishment argument, prosecutor compared the offense’s seriousness to other second-degree felonies (e.g., certain drug offenses); defense objected, court sustained and instructed the jury to disregard, and defense moved for mistrial which was denied.
Guidry appealed, arguing the prosecutor’s reference to other offenses implicitly urged a higher sentence and was incurably prejudicial such that the court should have granted a mistrial.
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the State’s comments were a permissible response/plea for law enforcement or not severely prejudicial, (2) the trial court’s curative instruction was sufficient, and (3) the sentence (four years) was within the lower end of the statutory range, making any error harmless.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying a mistrial after the prosecutor referenced other crimes while arguing punishment	The prosecutor’s comparison to other second-degree felonies implied the jury should give a higher sentence and urged punishment based on irrelevant comparisons; the remark was so prejudicial an instruction to disregard could not cure it	The comment was responsive to defense argument, constituted a permissible plea for law enforcement or reasonable contrast of seriousness, and any error was cured by the court’s instruction; appellant’s general objection was arguably insufficient	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion in denying mistrial; comments were permissible or harmless, and the curative instruction sufficed

Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (mistrial is appropriate only when error is so prejudicial continuation would be futile)
Archie v. State, 221 S.W.3d 695 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (denial of mistrial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Borjan v. State, 787 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (proper jury argument categories and plea for law enforcement)
Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (improper argument reversible only if extreme, injects harmful new facts, or violates mandatory statute)
Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (nonconstitutional harm analysis for improper jury argument)
Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (mistrial required only in extreme circumstances where curative instruction unlikely to cure prejudice)
Robbins v. State, 145 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004) (prosecutor may contrast an offense with others to express its seriousness, without detailing other crimes)
Torres v. State, 92 S.W.3d 911 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (isolated improper remarks can be harmless where curative instruction given and verdict within range)