Sullens, Everett Jesse, PD-0835-15

Everett Jesse Sullens was charged by one-count indictment with knowingly causing bodily injury to a family member.
At trial on July 30, 2013, a jury found Sullens guilty of assault bodily injury to a family member.
Punishment was assessed at 15 years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
A defense motion in limine precluded certain evidence and arguments, and the State requested rulings on witness testimony prior to trial.
During trial, the State’s witness violated the motion in limine by referring to prior incidents; defense moved for mistrial, which the trial court denied.
The Second Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review addressing the mistrial denial issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying mistrial	Sullens argues the mistrial denial was error	Sullens’ position is that an instruction to disregard would not cure the prejudice	Denied; trial court did not abuse discretion (conviction affirmed)

Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (prejudice from extraneous offenses; improper testimony and cure by instruction to disregard)
Mayes v. State, 816 S.W.2d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (extraneous offenses; lingering prejudice; importance of proper cures)
Kemp v State, 846 S.W.2d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (instruction to disregard can cure improper testimony absent incurable prejudice)
Livingston v. State, 739 S.W.2d 311 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (testimony in violation of motion in limine; admissibility and curative instructions)
Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (standard of review for mistrial rulings; abuse of discretion)
Booker v. State, 103 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (extraneous-offense testimony; admissibility and potential prejudice)