Jose Guadelupe Guerrero v. State, 528 S.W.3d 796

On Jan. 8, 2010, police responded to a shooting at Jose Guerrero’s home; Guerrero’s girlfriend, Martha Escamilla, was found dead from a gunshot to the head. Guerrero gave inconsistent statements (told officers she shot herself and at one point said he shot her) and later gave a videotaped statement to homicide investigators.
Officer M. Peters recovered a 9mm semiautomatic handgun from the bedroom and placed it in his patrol car trunk; Crime Scene Unit officers later photographed and collected the gun for analysis.
At trial (Apr. 2016), the State produced Peters’s sustained internal-discipline file (21 complaints) as Brady material; defense requested a continuance to investigate the disciplinary specifics and possible spoliation; the trial court denied the continuance.
During presentation of Guerrero’s videotaped statement, two adult children of the victim made visible expressions (head shaking, surprised faces); the court inquired, instructed jurors to disregard the behavior, and denied Guerrero’s mistrial motion.
A jury found Guerrero guilty of murder and assessed 99 years’ imprisonment; Guerrero appealed arguing (1) erroneous denial of continuance and (2) erroneous denial of mistrial due to juror taint.

Issue	Guerrero's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Denial of continuance after disclosure of Peters’s disciplinary file	Continuance needed to investigate misconduct relevance to weapon handling, appellant statements, and possible spoliation	Trial court acted within discretion; defense had sufficient material and prior disclosure of Peters as potential expert; no specific prejudice shown	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed
Denial of mistrial for juror taint from victim’s children’s reactions	Children’s visible reactions during videotape were incurably prejudicial and required mistrial	Reactions were nonverbal, not extreme; court’s inquiry and instruction to disregard cured any potential prejudice	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed

Barney v. State, 698 S.W.2d 114 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (continuance rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Bautista v. State, 474 S.W.3d 770 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard for continuance)
Janecka v. State, 937 S.W.2d 456 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (mere desire for more preparation insufficient to show abuse)
Heiselbetz v. State, 906 S.W.2d 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (prejudice must be shown to reverse continuance denial)
Renteria v. State, 206 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (speculation is insufficient to show harm from denial of continuance)
Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (instructions to disregard generally cure spectator/witness improprieties)
Gamboa v. State, 296 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (same—jury presumed to follow curative instruction)
Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (mistrial reserved for errors so prejudicial further proceedings would be futile)
Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (mistrial required only in extreme, incurable circumstances)
Ashley v. State, 362 S.W.2d 847 (Tex. Crim. App. 1962) (curative instructions can obviate mistrial for emotional outbursts)