Rainier Monte Conley v. State, 01-16-00100-CR

Conley was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm (he pleaded guilty; sentence 10 years) and with assault with a deadly weapon (tried by jury; sentenced to 50 years; sentences concurrent).
The assault arose from shots fired at a car carrying victims Daryl Horton (driver) and Billy Perdue (passenger) after a series of prior threats and confrontations in December 2014.
Horton identified Conley as one of three shooters in a lineup; Perdue’s seat was struck by a bullet; both survived. Conley’s wife offered an alibi and said she owned the gun found in the Cadillac.
The jury charge listed the victims as “Daryl Wayne Horton and or Billy Eugene Perdue” without requiring the jury to specify which victim was assaulted.
Conley moved for a new trial and a mistrial, arguing (1) the jury charge allowed a non-unanimous verdict by failing to identify the victim and (2) a State witness’s testimony that Conley rejected a 10-year plea bargain was highly prejudicial.
The trial court denied both motions; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Conley)	Held
Jury unanimity / defective charge	Charge sufficient; unanimity not required to name single victim when evidence shows a single criminal conduct	Charge allowed conviction without jurors agreeing which victim was assaulted, violating unanimity	Court: Error existed but not egregiously harmful; affirmed conviction
Motion for new trial based on charge error	No egregious harm shown; evidence and arguments support unanimous factual finding	Charge error deprived Conley of unanimous verdict and warrants new trial	Court: Denied — no egregious harm when considering charge, evidence, parties’ arguments, other record items
Mistrial for witness statement about rejected plea offer	The testimony was inadvertent and cured by instruction to disregard	Testimony that Conley rejected a 10-year plea offer was highly prejudicial and requires mistrial	Court: Denial of mistrial not an abuse — instruction to disregard cured the error
Sufficiency of less-drastic remedies after improper testimony	Jury instruction and other remedies can cure prejudice	Mistrial was necessary because statement was incurable prejudice	Held: Less drastic remedy (instruction to disregard) was adequate; mistrial properly denied

Jourdan v. State, 428 S.W.3d 86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (jury must be unanimous on every element of offense)
Saenz v. State, 451 S.W.3d 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (charge that doesn’t require jury to select specific victim violates unanimity)
Cosio v. State, 353 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (standard for assessing egregious harm from charge error)
Arrington v. State, 451 S.W.3d 834 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (analysis of charge error and egregious harm factors)
Ocon v. State, 284 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standard of review for mistrial rulings)
Gamboa v. State, 296 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (jury instructions usually cure evidentiary improprieties)
Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (mistrial is extreme remedy reserved for incurable prejudice)