Michael James Reed, Jr. v. State, 421 S.W.3d 24

Michael James Reed Jr. was indicted for continuous sexual abuse (later amended to aggravated sexual assault), aggravated sexual assault of a child, and indecency with a child by contact arising from alleged acts against his niece, who was under 14.
The State amended Count 1 to allege a second count of aggravated sexual assault; the case proceeded to jury trial.
The jury convicted Reed on all three counts; the court sentenced him to life on Counts I and II and 20 years on Count III, to run consecutively, and Reed appealed.
Reed raised three issues on appeal: (1) jury charge error in defining “intentionally” and “knowingly”; (2) improper State closing argument (appeal for sympathy); and (3) denial of a mistrial after the judge misstated an indictment count to the venire.
The court reviewed jury-charge error for egregious harm (no trial objection), assessed the propriety of prosecutorial argument for abuse of discretion, and reviewed denial of mistrial for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Reed)	Held
1. Jury definitions of “intentionally” and “knowingly”	Definitions were proper/harmless because the application paragraph limited culpability to the charged conduct and intent was not contested.	Inclusion of full statutory definitions allowed jury to convict based on nature-of-conduct vs result-of-conduct and caused egregious harm.	Court: No reversible error — even if definitions erred, application paragraph limited them and intent was not contested, so no egregious harm.
2. State’s closing argument (appeal for sympathy)	Argument was a permissible summation, reasonable deduction, and plea for law enforcement that replied to defense attacks on the victim’s credibility.	Prosecutor made an improper sympathy plea about the victim’s embarrassment and burdens, warranting reversal.	Court: No abuse of discretion in overruling objection; argument fell within permissible categories.
3. Motion for mistrial after judge’s misstatement to venire	Initial misstatement was inadvertent and cured by prompt correction and instruction; jurors presumed to follow instructions.	Judge’s comment that defendant was charged with continuous sexual abuse (after amendment) tainted venire and required mistrial.	Court: Denial of mistrial affirmed — instruction cured error; misstatement not comparable to cases requiring mistrial.

Hutch v. State, 922 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (first step in jury-charge error review)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (egregious-harm standard when no timely objection)
Vick v. State, 991 S.W.2d 830 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (aggravated sexual assault characterized as conduct-oriented statute)
Stone v. State, 574 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (prosecutorial appeals to think about victim and law enforcement can be proper)
Wood v. State, 18 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (mistrial appropriate only for highly prejudicial, incurable errors)
Blue v. State, 41 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (trial judge comments that can taint venire and presumption of innocence)