Jaime Hernandez Vidal v. State, 418 S.W.3d 907

Early-morning collision between two trucks driven by appellant Jaime Hernandez Vidal and Maria (Connie) Martinez; Martinez’s five‑year‑old son Nathaniel suffered extensive injuries and was the complainant.
Police charged appellant with recklessly causing serious bodily injury to a child; appellant pleaded not guilty and proceeded to jury trial.
Martinez testified that appellant chased and repeatedly struck her truck, pushing it into a ditch; appellant testified he was pursuing a dark‑colored car to get a license plate and that the trucks collided while he attempted to pass.
Before charge, appellant requested a jury instruction for the defense of a third person (Tex. Penal Code § 9.33); the trial court denied the request.
Appellant moved for new trial alleging prosecutorial misconduct and subornation of perjury by the prosecutor (based on Martinez’s alleged lies); the trial court denied a hearing on the motion.
Appellant also moved for mistrial after Martinez testified to an alleged post‑collision threat by appellant; the court instructed the jury to disregard and denied mistrial. The jury found appellant guilty and assessed two years’ confinement; the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by refusing instruction on defense of a third person	Vidal: evidence supported a requested jury instruction under § 9.33 because he acted to protect Martinez	State: even if § 9.33 elements were met, § 9.05 bars justification when an innocent third person is recklessly injured	Denied — instruction not required because defendant was prosecuted for reckless injury to an innocent third person under § 9.05; court would deny § 9.33 instruction in any event
Whether court abused discretion by denying a hearing on motion for new trial alleging prosecutorial misconduct/subornation of perjury	Vidal: prosecutor knew Martinez would lie and encouraged perjury, depriving him of a fair trial; he was entitled to a hearing	State: movant must present affidavit with specific factual basis for claims when allegations are outside the record; the attached affidavit was conclusory	Denied — motion relied on matters outside the record but was unsupported by a detailed affidavit; trial court did not abuse discretion
Whether trial court erred by denying mistrial after Martinez testified to an unadmitted threat	Vidal: the forbidden statement was highly prejudicial and incurable	State: court promptly instructed jurors to disregard; such curative instruction ordinarily cures error unless statement is inflammatory beyond remedy	Denied — prompt instruction cured any potential prejudice; no abuse of discretion

Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard for submitting requested defensive jury instruction)
Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (defensive instruction requires evidence supporting each element)
Hayes v. State, 161 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (effect of § 9.05 on defenses asserting use of force)
Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (requirements for hearing on motion for new trial; affidavit sufficiency)
Stokes v. State, 277 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (presentment and preservation principles for post‑trial claims)
Ocon v. State, 284 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standard for reviewing denial of mistrial)
Kemp v. State, 846 S.W.2d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (curative instruction to disregard usually cures reference to extraneous offenses)