Richard Recio, Jr. v. State, 01-15-00410-CR

On June 19, 2014, Carlos Maldonado was robbed at gunpoint of his vehicle, phone, and wallet items; he identified a suspect from a police photo array as Richard Recio, Jr.
Police later located Maldonado’s vehicle hours after the robbery; Recio was a front‑seat passenger and his brother was driving; officers found Maldonado’s phone on the car and a firing handgun under the front passenger seat.
An investigating officer, Daniel Salinas, showed Maldonado a photo array and obtained Recio’s booking photo from the prior day; Salinas, on direct exam, volunteered that Recio had a ‘‘robbery hold’’ and that it involved a charge of felon in possession of a firearm.
The court interrupted, admonished the witness, instructed the jury to disregard the testimony about prior criminal history, and denied defense counsel’s motion for mistrial.
A jury convicted Recio of robbery and sentenced him to 25 years; Recio appealed raising (1) denial of mistrial as to the witness’s reference to prior criminal history/extraneous offense and (2) insufficiency of the evidence identifying Recio as the robber.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Recio)	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion in denying mistrial after witness said Recio had a ‘‘robbery hold’’ and was charged as a felon in possession	The statement was inadvertent and cured by the court’s admonition and instruction to disregard; no mistrial required.	The volunteer testimony improperly injected prior felony/extraneous offense, was highly prejudicial and inflammatory, and an instruction to disregard could not cure the harm—mistrial required.	Trial court declined mistrial; appellant argues abuse of discretion (preservation of issue and legal standard discussed).
Whether evidence was legally sufficient to prove Recio was the robber	Identification by Maldonado from photo array and discovery of victim’s property in the vehicle support conviction.	Evidence is insufficient because (1) Maldonado testified the person he selected was not Recio, (2) a similar‑looking brother was present and was driving, (3) a key eyewitness (Pyle) could not identify Recio, and (4) no forensic linking Recio to the gun; thus reasonable doubt exists.	Jury convicted; appellant contends insufficiency under Jackson/Brooks standard and seeks acquittal or reversal.

Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (standard and factors for declaring mistrial)
Sewell v. State, 696 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (mistrial appropriate when impartial verdict cannot be reached)
State v. Gonzalez, 855 S.W.2d 692 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (abuse of discretion review of mistrial denial)
Hinojosa v. State, 4 S.W.3d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (instruction to disregard insufficient when testimony is calculated to inflame jury)
Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (general rule that instruction to disregard usually cures improper testimony)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (legal‑sufficiency standard—evidence must allow a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (application of Jackson standard in Texas)