Delore Guidry Junior v. State
14-16-00565-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 24, 2017Background
- Delore Guidry, Jr. was tried on two consolidated indecency-with-a-child (second-degree felony) charges involving two minor complainants who testified he touched their genitals/breasts in 2013–2014.
- Guidry was convicted by a jury in each case and sentenced to four years’ confinement on each count, concurrent.
- At punishment, both sides reurged guilt/innocence evidence; defense argued the jury should impose punishment at the lower end of the 2–20 year range given Guidry’s lack of priors and ineligibility for probation.
- During the State’s punishment argument, the prosecutor compared the offense’s seriousness to other second-degree felonies (e.g., certain drug offenses); defense objected, the court sustained, and instructed the jury to disregard; defense moved for mistrial which was denied.
- Guidry appealed the denial of the mistrial, arguing the prosecutor’s references improperly invited the jury to punish based on comparisons to other crimes and that the curative instruction could not cure the prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Guidry's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying mistrial after prosecutor referenced other crimes when discussing punishment range | The prosecutor’s references invited the jury to punish beyond the facts here by comparing Guidry’s offense to other second-degree felonies, causing incurable prejudice | The remarks were responsive to defense argument and constituted a permissible plea for law enforcement or reasonable deduction; any error was cured by the court’s instruction | Court affirmed: remarks were responsive and/or a permissible plea for law enforcement; any error was non-constitutional and harmless; instruction cured prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (mistrial appropriate only when error is so prejudicial further proceedings would be futile)
- Archie v. State, 221 S.W.3d 695 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion review of mistrial denial)
- Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (trial-court rulings upheld if within zone of reasonable disagreement)
- Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (mistrial required only in extreme circumstances where prejudice is incurable)
- Borjan v. State, 787 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (proper jury argument categories and permissible 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 statute)
- Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (nonconstitutional harm analysis and factors for assessing prejudice)