Ronjee Middleton v. State, 04-14-00678-CR

Appellant Ronjee Middleton was tried by jury for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, convicted, and sentenced to 27 years' imprisonment. Appeal timely filed.
At trial the State sought and the court granted a jury shuffle; Appellant objected claiming Batson implications because three Black veniremen moved toward the back of the panel.
During direct examination a State witness spontaneously referenced the defendant's “prior charge”; the court excused the jury, sustained an objection, instructed the jury to disregard, and denied Appellant’s mistrial motion.
Defense witness Misti Smith was present in the courtroom during testimony (having told the bailiff she was not a witness), later sought to testify about the victim’s intoxication and drug use; the trial court excluded her under Tex. R. Evid. 614 (and other evidentiary objections). Appellant offered an offer of proof.
Key evidentiary support for the conviction: eyewitness testimony that Middleton displayed a handgun and later shots were fired toward the complainant; crime-scene recovered five spent casings and a .380 firearm; gunshot-residue tests were positive on Middleton’s hands and ballistics linked the casings to the recovered .380.

Issue	Middleton's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Batson constraints apply to a jury shuffle and whether the court erred in allowing the shuffle	Batson should apply to shuffles because the shuffle effectively hindered a Batson challenge when three Black veniremen were moved back	Batson does not extend to jury shuffles; Art. 35.11 authorizes shuffles without stating reasons; moving veniremen back does not bar selection or prove discriminatory intent	Court affirmed: Batson does not apply to shuffles; no reversible error and any error harmless
Whether a mistrial was required after a witness mentioned the defendant’s prior charge	Mentioning the prior charge was highly prejudicial and required a mistrial	Statement was spontaneous, bench conference followed, the court sustained objection and instructed jury to disregard; cure by instruction was adequate	Court affirmed denial of mistrial: instruction to disregard cured the error
Whether exclusion of defense witness (M. Smith) under Rule 614 was erroneous and harmful	Exclusion prevented impeachment of State witness Barron about intoxication and was crucial to defense	The witness violated the Rule by being present during testimony; she offered only limited, non-crucial testimony (drinking and pills) and exclusion was within discretion; any error harmless	Court affirmed exclusion: Rule 614 properly applied and any error non-reversible

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (established three-step test barring race-based peremptory strikes)
Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (Court of Criminal Appeals expressed disapproval of extending Batson to jury shuffles)
Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (U.S. 2005) (use of a jury shuffle can be considered in broader patterns of racial discrimination)
Gray v. State, 233 S.W.3d 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Sixth Amendment fair cross-section principles and limits on petit jury composition claims)
Lockhart v. United States, 476 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1986) (defendant not entitled to jury of any particular composition)
Russell v. State, 155 S.W.3d 176 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standard for nonconstitutional error: affects substantial rights if it has substantial and injurious effect on verdict)
Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (instruction to disregard ordinarily cures improper testimony)
Webb v. State, 766 S.W.2d 236 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (framework for weighing Rule 614 violation against defendant's right to present a defense)
Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (erroneous exclusion of evidence typically analyzed as nonconstitutional error under Rule 44.2(b))
Mechler v. State, 153 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (Rule 403 abuse-of-discretion review for exclusion balancing probative value and prejudice)