Luna, Abel

PD-1405-15
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
NO. PD-1405-15 Transmitted 11/30/2015 11:13:31 PM
Accepted 12/1/2015 3:47:46 PM
ABEL ACOSTA
IN THE CLERK
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
ABEL LUNA
Petitioner,
vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Petition for Review of the
Eighth Court of Appeals
Judgment in No. 08-13-00151-CR
affirming conviction in Cause No. 20110D01174
from The 409TH District Court
El Paso County, Texas
PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Ruben P. Morales
Attorney for Petitioner
Texas Bar No. 14419100
718 Myrtle Ave.
December 1, 2015 El Paso, Texas 79901
915 - 542 - 0388
915 - 225-5132 fax
rbnpmrls@gmail.com
SUBMITTED: November 30, 2015
PARTIES INVOLVED
TRIAL COURT: 409TH DISTRICT COURT
Honorable SAM MEDRANO, judge presiding
500 E. San Antonio Ave., Suite 459, El Paso, Texas 79901
ABEL LUNA,
Appellant/Petitioner
RUBEN P. MORALES
Appellate Counsel for Petitioner
718 Myrtle Avenue, El Paso, Texas 79901
MATTHEW DEKOATZ
Trial and Appellate Counsel for Appellant
P.O. BOX 1886
El Paso, Texas 79950
JAIME ESPARZA
District Attorney, El Paso County, Texas
Appellate and Trial Counsel for Appellee
500 E. San Antonio Ave., El Paso, Texas 79901
DOUGLAS K. FLETCHER
Assistant District Attorney
Appellate Counsel for Appellee
500 E. San Antonio Ave., Rm. 201
El Paso Texas 79901
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PARTIES INVOLVED…………………………………………………………….ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................iv
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ............................................... v
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................vi
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY.......................................................vi
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW ....................................................................................... 1
ARGUMENT
1. Whether the Eighth Court erred in determining that cumulative error cannot be
established based on general objections which failed to mention a due process
violation…………………………………………………………………………..............…2
PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................ 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................. 7
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE……………………………………………….8
APPENDIX A Eighth Court Opinion .................................................... Attachment 1
iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TEXAS CASES
See Bautista v. State, 363 S.W.3d 259, 262-63 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2012)
(citing Jimenez v. State, 298 S.W.3d 203, 214 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2009))
................................................................................................................................. .. 5
Johnson v. State, 432 S.W.3d 552, 561-62 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2014) ............... 6
Luna v. State, No. 08-13-00151-CR, 2015 WL 4572276, at *8 (Tex. App. July 29,
2015) ……………………………………………………………………………vi, 4
Rogers v. State, 725 S.W.2d 350, 359–60 (Tex. App.-Houston 1987) (citing
Henderson v. State, 617 S.W.2d 697, 699-700 (Tex.Crim.App.1981)……………5
CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES
TEX. R. APP. P. 66.3(b) ............................................................................................ 4
TEX. R. APP. P. 66.3(c) ............................................................................................ 4
iv
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Petitioner does not believe that oral argument is necessary.
v
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner was charged by indictment with theft of $1,500 or more but less
than $20,000.00. R. 2-97-99. The jury found Appellant guilty. R. 6-47. Petitioner’s
punishment was assessed at 9 months of confinement in a State Jail and a fine of
$7,500.00. R. 7-25-29
STATEMENT OF THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE
Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal on May 16, 2013. On July 29, 2015,
the Eighth Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction in an unpublished opinion. Luna v.
State, 2015 WL 4572276 (Tex. App. – El Paso, July 29, 2015). A motion for
rehearing was timely filed on September 14, 2015 and denied on September 30,
2015. This Court granted an extension of time in which to file a petition for
discretionary review until November 30, 2015.
vi
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
1. Whether the Eighth Court erred in determining that cumulative error cannot
be established based on general objections which failed to mention a due
process violation.
1
ARGUMENT GROUND 1
During Petitioner’s trial, the State repeatedly referenced facts that were not in
evidence and could not be inferred from the evidence presented. Specifically, the
State alluded to accusations of theft by another employer, judgments of conviction
that were not introduced at trial, prior placement on probation which was not proven,
improper comments on Petitioner’s 5th Amendment right of silence, Petitioner’s lack
of candor with defense counsel, and Petitioner’s service of community supervision
outside of El Paso County. All of these matters were objected to by Petitioner.
Some of Petitioner’s objections were sustained, others were followed by an
instruction to disregard and denial of a mistrial and, still others were overruled.
However, none of Petitioner’s objections specifically mentioned due process. On
appeal, Petitioner argued that the cumulative effect of the State’s improper
arguments and misconduct, denied him the right to due process and a fair trial. The
Eighth Court erroneously held that there could be no cumulative error or harm
because the complained of errors were either cured by prompt instructions to
disregard or waived.
Relevant Facts
At the guilt-not guilt stage of trial, the prosecutor requested permission to ask
Petitioner about other alleged extraneous theft offenses. The trial court denied the
request. In spite of the trial court’s ruling, the prosecutor proceeded to ask Petitioner
about other accusations of theft. Petitioner objected, the trial court admonished the
prosecutor, instructed the jury to disregard and denied Petitioner’s request for a
mistrial. R. 5:110-113.
During closing arguments at guilt-not guilt, the prosecutor alluded to Bernie
Madoff. Petitioner objected, an instruction to disregard was given and a request for
mistrial was denied. R. 6:43-44. On appeal, the State and the Eighth Court agreed
2
that the reference was objectionable. However, the Eighth Court held that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant a mistrial.
During closing arguments at the punishment phase of trial, the State
referenced judgments of conviction that were not introduced by the State.
Specifically, the prosecutor stated “Yeah, we – have judgments. We didn’t bring
them.” R. 7:17. Petitioner objected, an instruction to disregard was given and,
Petitioner’s request for a mistrial was denied. R. 7:18. A short while later, the State
argued that Petitioner had been convicted of DWI even though evidence of such
conviction was not presented or testified to by any witness. R. 7:19. Petitioner’s
objection was not ruled upon. The State then argued that Petitioner would not be
supervised locally but in Phoenix. R. 7:20. Petitioner objected as to the State
arguing outside the record. R. 7:20. The objection was overruled. R. 7:20. A few
pages later, the prosecutor argued that the defense attorney didn’t know certain facts
relevant to the case, implying that Petitioner was not honest with his lawyer. The
trial court sustained Petitioner’s objection but the prosecutor followed up the
previous statement with the statement that “you can’t even trust the client, the
defendant, to be honest with his lawyer.” R. 7:23. Immediately after that statement,
the prosecutor argued that it was unlikely the defendant could pay restitution to the
victims because “there’s no evidence of how much money the defendant makes or
3
his capability of being able to pay them restitution.” Petitioner’s “improper
comment on the fifth” objection was sustained. R. 7:23.
Opinion of the Court of Appeals
In affirming Petitioner’s conviction, the Eighth Court wrote: “The only
“errors” we have identified were the isolated reference to Bernie Madoff in the
guilt-innocence phase and the isolated reference to other “judgments” in the
punishment phase, both of which we have determined were cured by prompt
instructions to disregard. Having already determined Appellant either waived or
failed to establish any error, there can be no cumulative error or harm.” Luna v.
State, No. 08-13-00151-CR, 2015 WL 4572276, at *8 (Tex. App. July 29, 2015)
Reasons for Review
Review should be granted because the Eighth Court has decided an important
question of state or federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by the Court
of Criminal Appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 66.3(b). Review should also be granted
because the Eighth Court’s decision conflicts with other court of appeals’ decisions
on the same issue. TEX. R. APP. P. 66.3(c).
Where there is serious and continuing prosecutorial misconduct that
undermines the reliability of the fact finding process ... resulting in deprivation of
fundamental fairness and due process of law, the defendant is entitled to a new trial
4
even though objections have not been perfected.” See Bautista v. State, 363 S.W.3d
259, 262-63 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2012) (citing Jimenez v. State, 298 S.W.3d
203, 214 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2009)). In Bautista, many of the instances of
misconduct alleged by the defendant were either not objected to or, the defense
objections were only general objections that did not mention prosecutorial
misconduct. Despite the lack of specific objections that mentioned either
prosecutorial misconduct or a due process violation, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals addressed the issue of a potential due process violation based on pervasive
alleged misconduct by the prosecutor. In the end, the San Antonio Court held that
although the prosecution may have stretched the limits of advocacy, its overall
conduct did not rise to the level of a due process violation. However, it did address
the issue. In this case, objections were made to most of the alleged instances of
misconduct by the prosecutor. However, with respect to individual errors, the
Eighth Court either found waiver because it focused on Petitioner’s failure to object
on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct, or, it did not address the specific objection
in its opinion. Then, when the Eighth Court addressed Petitioner’s overall issue of
cumulative error, it summarily dismissed the argument by finding that Petitioner had
waived the issue. The Eighth Court’s opinion is contrary to Bautista and Jimenez
supra. It is also contrary to Rogers v. State, where the First Court of Appeals in
5
Houston found proper preservation of error was not required where the prosecutor
repeatedly made sidebar remarks and suggested inflammatory facts that lacked
evidentiary support while cross-examining the defendant and his character witness.
725 S.W.2d 350, 359–60 (Tex. App.-Houston 1987) (citing Henderson v. State, 617
S.W.2d 697, 699-700 (Tex.Crim.App.1981). But see Johnson v. State, 432 S.W.3d
552, 561-62 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2014) (finding no pervasive misconduct due to
“improper gamesmanship” by misleading the jury as to the effect of enhancements
where prosecutor explained such enhancements only during voir dire; error not
preserved absent perfected objections).
Conclusion
This Court should grant review because the issue of pervasive misconduct by
the prosecutor which results in a due process violation has not been squarely
addressed by this Court. While the Supreme Court and this Court have found
reversible due process violations in several cases where the misconduct by the
prosecution was extreme, it remains unclear what a defendant must do, if anything,
to preserve such an argument for appeal.
6
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For all the reasons stated above, Petitioner respectfully requests that the
Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals grant this petition for discretionary review.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Ruben P. Morales
Ruben P. Morales
Attorney for Petitioner
Texas Bar No. 14419100
718 Myrtle Avenue
El Paso, Texas 79901
915 - 542 - 0388
915 - 225 - 5132 fax
rbnpmrls@gmail.com
Certificate of Service
I certify that on November 30, 2015 a copy of this petition was delivered via
efile to the Office of the El Paso County District Attorney at
DAappeals@epcounty.com, and to the State Prosecuting Attorney at
information@spa.texas.gov.
/s/ Ruben P. Morales
Ruben P. Morales
7
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review contains 1,459
words and complies with the applicable Rules of Appellate Procedure.
/s/ Ruben P. Morales
Ruben P. Morales
8
COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
ABEL LUNA, §
No. 08-13-00151-CR
Appellant, §
Appeal from the
v. §
409th District Court
THE STATE OF TEXAS, §
of El Paso County, Texas
Appellee. §
(TC# 20110D01174)
OPINION
Appellant Able Luna was convicted of aggregated theft of property valued at $1,500 to
$20,000 and sentenced to nine months’ confinement in state jail. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §
31.03(e)(4)(A) (West Supp. 2014). On appeal, Appellant contends the trial court abused its
discretion in denying his motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct that occurred
during his cross-examination by the State. Appellant also complains of alleged improper jury
arguments in the guilt-innocence and punishment phases of the trial. Finally, Appellant argues
the combined effect of cumulative errors requires reversal. We conclude the trial court did not
abuse its discretion and there was no cumulative error. Accordingly, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant was the store manager of Ruby Lola, a boutique store specializing in accessories,
handbags, jewelry, and clothing. The employees at Ruby Lola were allowed, on a short-term
basis, to take items from the store and wear them as part of the store’s marketing efforts. The
store also had a layaway policy under which employees received a discount on store merchandise
and could take items from the store by placing them on layaway.
Appellant began to avail himself of these employee perks by taking merchandise from the
store, but not bringing it back. The other employees began to notice and eventually brought it to
the attention of the owners. An investigation revealed that Appellant was covering up these thefts
by manipulating “reversal receipts” and keeping the cash. Reversal receipts were being generated
reflecting that a customer had returned merchandise to the store and received cash back. But, no
merchandise was being returned. Several customers testified they neither returned merchandise
nor received cash back, as reflected on reversal receipts bearing Appellant’s name.
Appellant’s name was on all the fraudulent reversal receipts. Only Appellant and the
store owners had the degree of computer access required to generate reversal receipts. The
reversal receipts were generated at times when Appellant was confirmed to be on the store’s
computer. A reversal-receipt report documented that approximately $13,000 in cash was stolen
through Appellant’s reversal-receipt scheme. And, an inventory review disclosed that
approximately $30,000 in merchandise was missing.
DISCUSSION
Mistrial Based on Prosecutorial Misconduct
Standard of Review
A mistrial is an appropriate remedy in “extreme circumstances” for a narrow class of
highly prejudicial and incurable errors. Ocon v. State, 284 S.W.3d 880, 884 (Tex.Crim.App.
2009). We review the denial of a mistrial for an abuse of discretion. Id. We must uphold the
2
ruling if it was within the zone of reasonable disagreement. Id. In determining whether a trial
court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial, we would balance three factors: (1) the severity
of the misconduct (the magnitude of the prejudicial effect); (2) the effectiveness of the curative
measures taken; and (3) the certainty of conviction or the punishment assessed absent the
misconduct. Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72, 77 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004); Mosley v. State, 983
S.W.2d 249, 259 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998).
Background
Appellant testified in the guilt-innocence phase of the trial. Before cross-examining
Appellant, the prosecutor informed the trial court in a bench conference that the State believed
Appellant had opened the door to the admission of extraneous-offense evidence by claiming
mistake. The prosecutor requested permission to inquire whether Appellant had, among other
things, stolen from his previous employers as well. The trial court denied the request, stating:
“Those things aren’t coming in.”
Immediately following the trial court’s ruling, the prosecutor asked Appellant:
Q. Okay, Mr. Luna, now, did you in fact work at another retail shop before you
were working with Shelly Dominguez?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the name of that place?
A. Delia’s Boutique.
Q. And you never stole any money there?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Nobody ever accused you of stealing money?
3
Defense counsel broke in exclaiming “Judge[,] Judge,” and the trial court promptly called counsel
to the bench. Without waiting for a specific objection, the trial court admonished the prosecutor
in a lively exchange. 1 Defense counsel, without first raising an objection or requesting an
instruction to disregard, moved for mistrial, stating only: “What is going on? I move for a
mistrial, Your Honor.” The trial court responded: “Your motion to disregard will be made to
this jury. Your motion for mistrial at this time is denied.” The trial court then instructed the jury
to “disregard the last question, and the last response[.]”
Analysis
In Issue One, Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion
for mistrial because “the State disregarded the court’s ruling and advanced before the jury
extraneous offense evidence.” Appellant argues that the prosecutor’s deliberate disregard of the
trial court’s ruling constituted “prosecutorial misconduct that irreversibly tainted the jury.”
1
[Court]: Please tell me you didn’t understand my ruling. Please tell me you didn’t understand what I ruled,
and that is the reason you went into it.
[Prosecutor]: I did understand, Your Honor.
[Court]: And you did it anyway.
[Prosecutor]: I just wanted to see if he was going to say that he had never been accused of it. I did not intend
to go into it.
[Defense Counsel]: What is going on here, Judge?
[Court]: Do it again. Do it again.
[Prosecutor]: I will not.
[Court]: And see what happens to this case. Okay.
[Defense Counsel]: What is going on? I move for a mistrial, Your Honor.
[Prosecutor]: Your Honor, I do not believe that this manifests necessity.
[Court]: It will be if it happens again. Your motion to disregard will be made to this jury. Your motion for
mistrial at this time is denied.
4
Waiver
As an initial matter, we must decide if Appellant has preserved error. The State contends
Appellant waived any complaint of prosecutorial misconduct by failing to object and by failing to
offer prosecutorial misconduct as a basis for mistrial. We agree that Appellant waived any
complaint concerning prosecutorial misconduct.
The basic principle of error preservation is the complaining party must let the trial judge
know what he wants and why he thinks he is entitled to it, and do so clearly enough for the judge to
understand and at a time when the trial court is in a position to do something about it. Chase v.
State, 448 S.W.3d 6, 11 (Tex.Crim.App. 2014); Bekendam v. State, 441 S.W.3d 295, 300
(Tex.Crim.App. 2014). The courts “are not hyper-technical in examination of whether error was
preserved[.]” Bekendam, 441 S.W.3d at 300.
To preserve error, however, a party must make the trial court aware of the grounds for the
motion or objection. A timely objection must be made that states the grounds “with sufficient
specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were
apparent from the context[.]” TEX.R.APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); see also TEX.R.EVID. 103(a)(1)(B)
(error may not be predicated on a ruling admitting evidence unless a timely objection is made that
“states the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context”); Sample v. State, 405 S.W.3d
295, 300 (Tex.App. – Fort Worth 2013, pet. ref’d) (“To preserve a complaint for review, a party
must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that states the specific
grounds for the desired ruling if they are not apparent from the context of the request, objection, or
motion.”). Even constitutional errors can be forfeited if a party fails to properly object. Clark v.
State, 365 S.W.3d 333, 339 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012).
5
The two main purposes of requiring a specific objection are to inform the trial judge of the
basis of the objection so that he has an opportunity to rule, and to allow opposing counsel to
remedy the error. Id. Specific objections “promote the prevention and correction of errors” so
that the parties and the judicial system “are not burdened by appeal and retrial.” Martinez v. State,
91 S.W.3d 331, 336 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). Appellate courts may not reverse a trial court’s
ruling on any theory or basis that might have been applicable to the case, but was not raised. Id. at
336; Sample, 405 S.W.3d at 300 (“A reviewing court should not address the merits of an issue that
has not been preserved for appeal.”).
Appellant here did not make any objection, and when Appellant moved for mistrial, he
failed to state any grounds. The proper method to preserve error in cases of prosecutorial
misconduct is to (1) object on specific grounds, (2) request an instruction that the jury disregard
the comment, and (3) move for a mistrial. Penry v. State, 903 S.W.2d 715, 764 (Tex.Crim.App.
1995); Cook v. State, 858 S.W.2d 467, 473 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). We recognize that “this
sequence is not essential to preserve complaints for appellate review.” Young v. State, 137
S.W.3d 65, 69 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). But, at a minimum, it was incumbent on Appellant to raise
prosecutorial misconduct as a basis for mistrial in order to preserve error on that ground on appeal.
Appellant let the trial judge know what he wanted – a mistrial. But, he failed to let the
judge know why he wanted it – for prosecutorial misconduct. Prosecutorial misconduct is an
independent basis for objection that must be specifically urged in order for error to be preserved.
Hajjar v. State, 176 S.W.3d 554, 566 (Tex.App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d); see also
Temple v. State, 342 S.W.3d 572, 603 n.10 (Tex.App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2010), aff’d, 390
S.W.3d 341 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013) (same); Perkins v. State, 902 S.W.2d 88, 96 (Tex.App. – El
6
Paso 1995), supplemented by, 905 S.W.2d 452 (Tex.App. – El Paso 1995, pet. ref’d) (appellant’s
failure to object on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct waived that asserted error on appeal).
By failing to raise prosecutorial misconduct as a ground for mistrial at trial, Appellant has
preserved nothing for our review.
We also conclude prosecutorial misconduct as a ground for mistrial was not “apparent
from the context[.]” TEX.R.APP.P. 33.1(a)(1)(A). For a complaint to be obvious without being
explicitly stated and still be sufficient to preserve error, “there [must] have been statements or
actions on the record that clearly indicate what the judge and opposing counsel understood the
argument to be.” Clark, 365 S.W.3d at 339. There are no statements or actions on the record
here that clearly indicate the judge and the prosecutor understood Appellant was moving for
mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct.
Alternative Basis for Mistrial
Appellant’s brief appears to raise only prosecutorial misconduct as a ground for reversal.
Appellant’s brief is not entirely clear on this point, however. Consequently, we will assume
Appellant is also arguing the trial court should have granted mistrial on the ground that
extraneous-offense evidence was referenced in front of the jury. We will further assume that
argument has been preserved for appeal. Even making these assumptions, however, we conclude
the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
First, no extraneous offense evidence was admitted. An improper reference to an
extraneous offense occurs where the evidence shows both a crime or bad act and that the defendant
was connected to or involved in it. Holmes v. State, 962 S.W.2d 663, 672 (Tex.App. – Waco
1998, pet. ref’d, untimely filed). “Evidence of an extraneous offense must necessarily involve
7
evidence of prior criminal conduct by the accused.” McKay v. State, 707 S.W.2d 23, 31-32
(Tex.Crim.App. 1985); Nguyen v. State, 177 S.W.3d 659, 667 (Tex.App. – Houston [1st Dist.]
2005, pet. ref’d). Evidence of an extraneous offense is not established if the evidence presented
does not show an offense was committed or fails to connect the defendant to it. McKay, 707
S.W.2d at 32; Nguyen, 177 S.W.3d at 667.
Here, Appellant denied he had stolen money from his prior employer, and Appellant never
had the opportunity to answer whether he had been accused of stealing money by his former
employer. The evidence presented did not show prior criminal conduct by Appellant. Mistrial is
an appropriate remedy only for highly prejudicial and incurable “errors.” See Ocon, 284 S.W.3d
at 884 (noting that mistrial is an appropriate remedy in extreme circumstances for a narrow class of
highly prejudicial and incurable errors). Here, there was no error because no extraneous-offense
evidence was admitted. The trial court therefore could not have abused its discretion in refusing
to grant mistrial when no extraneous-offense evidence was admitted.
Second, even applying the balancing test does not show an abuse of discretion. The
magnitude of any prejudicial effect was low. The only evidence the jury heard was Appellant’s
denial that he had stolen money from his prior employer. And, no other reference was made to
this evidence in the guilt-innocence phase of the trial. Further, the trial court promptly instructed
the jury to disregard the evidence that was presented. “Ordinarily, a prompt instruction to
disregard will cure error associated with an improper question and answer[.]” Ovalle v. State, 13
S.W.3d 774, 783 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). And, on appeal, we generally presume the jury follows
the trial court’s instructions in the manner presented. Thrift v. State, 176 S.W.3d 221, 224
(Tex.Crim.App. 2005).
8
Even an improper reference to an extraneous offense will generally be rendered harmless
by a prompt instruction to disregard. Kemp v. State, 846 S.W.2d 289, 308 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992)
(holding testimony referring to or implying extraneous offenses can be rendered harmless by an
instruction to the jury to disregard); Coe v. State, 683 S.W.2d 431, 435-36 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984)
(holding instruction to disregard cured error resulting from witness’s reference to “other
robberies” suggesting the appellant had committed them); Lachapelle v. State, 579 S.W.2d 1, 1-2
(Tex.Crim.App. 1979)(explaining that a prompt instruction to disregard cured any error arising out
of witness’s reference to another case that suggested the defendant had committed another crime).
Nor do we find the isolated reference here to be of such character as to suggest the
impossibility of withdrawing any impression it may have produced in their minds of the jury. See
Kemp, 846 S.W.2d at 308 (an instruction to disregard may be insufficient to cure when it appears
the mere asking of the question was clearly calculated to inflame the minds of the jury, and was of
such character as to suggest the impossibility of withdrawing the impression produced in their
minds). In any event, the “impossibility” exception applies only when it appears that asking the
question was tantamount to prosecutorial misconduct. See Perkins, 902 S.W.2d at 96 (citing
Huffman v. State, 746 S.W.2d 212, 218 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988)). As determined above, Appellant
waived any complaint of prosecutorial misconduct. We conclude the motion to disregard was
sufficient to render any error harmless.
In sum, Appellant has waived error, and to the extent error was not waived, the trial court
did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for mistrial. Issue One is overruled.
Improper Jury Argument
Appellant’s second and third issues involve alleged improper jury arguments by the State
9
in both the guilt-innocence and punishment phases of the trial. Proper jury argument includes
four areas: (1) summation of the evidence presented at trial, (2) reasonable deduction drawn from
that evidence, (3) answer to the opposing counsel’s argument, or (4) a plea for law enforcement.
Jackson v. State, 17 S.W.3d 664, 673 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); McFarland v. State, 845 S.W.2d 824,
844 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992).
Guilt-Innocence Phase
In Issue Two, Appellant attacks portions of the State’s closing argument in the
guilt-innocence phase. First, he contends that during final rebuttal argument, the State
impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the defense. Specifically, Appellant complains of
the following passages where the State argued the defense failed to use his subpoena power to
present evidence to support his assertion that someone had manipulated the store’s computer so
that the reversal receipts falsely reflected his name:
Well, let’s look at what his story is. The defendant’s story. This is his defense.
Well, defense counsel brought up that this was a product of faulty QuickBooks.
Where is that evidence? We didn’t see any evidence involving QuickBooks. The
defendant has subpoena power. He can bring that.
...
This QuickBooks can only spit out that which you put into it. Somebody inputted
it and that is what comes out of it. If there was a problem with QuickBooks, where
is that evidence?
The State contends the argument did not shift the burden of proof and was a proper
summation of the evidence that was presented at trial. We agree.
It is well-settled law that a prosecutor may properly comment on a defendant’s failure to
produce testimony from sources other than himself, and that those comments do not shift the
burden of proof when it is relevant to a disputed issue. Jackson, 17 S.W.3d at 674 (holding that
10
prosecutor’s comments concerning defendant’s failure to call his experts to the stand to refute the
State’s DNA evidence were not comments on the defendant’s failure to testify and “did not
impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the defense”). A prosecutor’s comment that the
appellant could have produced evidence to support a defensive theory goes to the credibility of the
appellant’s defense and does not shift the burden of proving the elements of the offense. Baines v.
State, 401 S.W.3d 104, 109 (Tex.App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (holding that the
prosecutor’s statement that defendant “has the same subpoena power” and could have called
witnesses to testify in his defense was “a permissible remark about appellant’s failure to produce
evidence in his favor on his defense and did not shift the burden of proof to appellant”).
The record reflects here that the State presented evidence of the protection provided by the
computer’s passwords and log-on requirements, to establish that it was Appellant, and not some
other person or employee, who had utilized the computer program to generate the false reversal
receipts. Appellant’s defensive theory, as established by his own testimony, was that someone
else had manipulated the store’s QuickBooks program so that all of the reversal receipts falsely
reflected his name. We conclude that the State’s argument to the jury (that Appellant failed to
subpoena witnesses or to produce evidence regarding the unreliability of the QuickBooks
program) went to the credibility of Appellant’s defense and was a proper summation of the
evidence, and thus did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the defense.
Appellant also contends in his second issue that the trial court erred in denying his motion
for mistrial when the State referenced Bernie Madoff:
[Prosecutor]: This world runs on trust. They [the store owners] are not
ridiculous, or goofy or idiotic for trusting the defendant. Everybody remember
Bernie Madoff the financial advisor to New York.
11
[Defense Counsel]: I am going to object to that, Judge. Improper argument.
The manifest is improper [sic].
[Court]: Sustained.
[Defense Counsel]: Move to disregard.
[Court]: The jury will disregard that last statement.
[Defense Counsel]: Move for mistrial.
[Court]: Your motion for mistrial is denied.
The State acknowledges that jury argument comparing a defendant with a notorious person
is generally improper, citing Marriott v. State, No. 10-09-00122-CR, 2010 WL 2869781, at *9
(Tex.App. – Waco July 21, 2010, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (State’s argument that
compared the defendant with Bernie Madoff was improper). The State asserts there is no error,
however, because the prosecutor here did not actually compare Appellant to Madoff, but that in
any event the error was harmless. We note that when the trial court has sustained an objection to
jury argument, instructed the jury to disregard, and then denied mistrial, approaching the issue as
one of harm is not a correct characterization of the issue. Hawkins, 135 S.W.3d at 76. The trial
court has essentially already performed both an error and harm analysis in balancing the relevant
factors. The proper issue on appeal is whether the trial court, having already balanced the
relevant factors, abused its discretion in determining that the conduct did not require a mistrial.
Id. at 77. We therefor apply the Mosley factors in determining whether a trial court abused its
discretion by denying a mistrial; in doing so, we balance: (1) the severity of the misconduct (the
magnitude of the prejudicial effect); (2) the effectiveness of the curative measures taken; and (3)
the certainty of conviction or the punishment assessed absent the misconduct. Id.
12
Here, the magnitude of any prejudicial effect was low. The State’s argument asked only if
the jury had ever heard of Madoff. This was the sole reference to Madoff. And, because of
defense counsel’s prompt objection, no comparison to Madoff was ever made. Further, the trial
court promptly instructed the jury to disregard the reference. A prompt instruction to disregard
ordinarily cures any harm from improper argument. Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 115–16
(Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Walker v. State, No. 08-13-00239-CR, 2015 WL 1396043, at *5 (Tex.App.
– El Paso Mar. 25, 2015, no pet. h.). We conclude the prosecutor’s single reference to Bernie
Madoff, without elaboration, was not so extreme as to render ineffective the trial court’s
instruction to disregard. Finally, the certainty of Appellant’s conviction was high absent the
misconduct. Several customers testified they neither returned merchandise nor received cash
back, as reflected on reversal receipts bearing Appellant’s name. Appellant’s name was on all the
fraudulent reversal receipts. Only Appellant and the store owners had the degree of computer
access required to generate reversal receipts, and the reversal receipts were generated at times
when Appellant was confirmed to be on the store’s computer. We conclude the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in refusing to grant mistrial. Issue Two is overruled.
Punishment Phase
In Issue Three, Appellant complains that the trial court abused its discretion when if denied
mistrial “after the State advanced manifestly improper argument at the punishment phase, to
include referencing extraneous judgments not in evidence.” In particular, Appellant notes that in
addressing punishment, his counsel argued that he had never been convicted of a felony or
misdemeanor, and that the State had offered no judgments that he had been convicted in any way.
In response, the State argued:
13
You’ll recall the testimony of Jorge Perez Vinglet [sic]. The testimony was
[Appellant was] convicted of DWI. Okay? He wasn’t sent to prison so you draw
the conclusion what did he do before that for punishment for his DWI. Yeah, we –
we have judgments. We didn’t bring them.
The trial court sustained Appellant’s objection that the statement “we have judgments” was
“totally outside of this record” and “manifestly improper,” and instructed the jury to disregard that
statement as Appellant requested. Appellant then moved for mistrial which was denied.
Appellant contends the State’s argument “attempted to introduce extraneous judicial orders not in
the record, and amounted to prosecutorial misconduct.” We conclude the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in denying a mistrial.
Waiver
Like his prosecutorial-misconduct complaint concerning the admission of
extraneous-offense evidence discussed above, Appellant has waived any complaint of
prosecutorial misconduct concerning the State’s argument in the punishment phase. Appellant
objected to the State’s argument only on the ground the argument was outside the record and
manifestly improper. As discussed above, prosecutorial misconduct is an independent basis for
objection that must be specifically urged in order for error to be preserved. Hajjar, 176 S.W.3d at
566. Further, it is well-settled that the ground raised on appeal must comport with the ground
raised in the trial court. Clark, 365 S.W.3d at 339; Thomas v. State, 723 S.W.2d 696, 700
(Tex.Crim.App. 1986). By failing to raise prosecutorial misconduct as a ground for mistrial at
trial, Appellant has preserved nothing for our review.
Alternative Basis for Mistrial
We will consider, however, whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying mistrial
on the ground that the State argued facts not in evidence. In doing so, we balance three factors:
14
(1) the severity of the misconduct (prejudicial effect), (2) curative measures, and (3) the certainty
of the punishment assessed absent the misconduct (likelihood of the same punishment being
assessed). Hawkins, 135 S.W.3d at 77.
In addressing the severity of the misconduct and magnitude of any prejudicial effect,
Appellant correctly asserts that no such judgments had been introduced and that some testimonial
references were only to Appellant having been “arrested” for DWI. Appellant also contends there
was no “direct” evidence of a DWI conviction. But, we note that in his cross-examination of Mr.
Perez-Vinalet, Appellant’s counsel indirectly informed the jury that Appellant had been convicted
of misdemeanor DWI:
Q. To your knowledge has Abel Luna ever been convicted of a felony?
A. I am not sure if DWI is a felony.
Q. No. It is a misdemeanor.
A. Okay.
Q. So other than that – other than his DWI conviction that you are aware of to
your knowledge has he ever been convicted of a felony?
A. I am not aware of it. (Emphasis added).
Thus, any prejudicial effect is somewhat mitigated because the jury was informed that
Appellant had one prior conviction for misdemeanor DWI. Thus, the prosecutor’s statement that
Perez-Vinalet testified Appellant was “convicted of DWI” was true. On the other hand, the
State’s argument informed the jury it had “judgments,” that is, more than one judgment, possibly
allowing the jury to speculate that Appellant had more than this one misdemeanor DWI
conviction. Appellant points out a subsequent argument by the State that: “Do you think he’s a
good candidate for probation when he’s been convicted of DWI?” But, because the jury had been
15
informed that Appellant had been convicted of misdemeanor DWI, this assertion did not magnify
any prejudicial effect because it was a true statement. Appellant contends that other portions of
the State’s argument magnified the prejudicial effect. None of these arguments by the State,
however, had any relevance to the complained-of remark about other “judgments.”
Thus, the trial court was faced with a single reference to “judgments” of conviction, when
there were no paper judgments in evidence and the only testimonial evidence was that Appellant
had one conviction for misdemeanor DWI. Once requested by Appellant, the trial court promptly
instructed the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s statement. As noted above, even an improper
reference to an extraneous offense will generally be rendered harmless by a prompt instruction to
disregard. Kemp, 846 S.W.2d at 308. We conclude the prosecutor’s single reference to having
“judgments,” without elaboration, was not so extreme as to render ineffective an instruction to
disregard.
As to the possible effect on the punishment assessed, the record reveals that Appellant
requested probation, while the State asked the jury to sentence Appellant to one year in a state jail
facility, without suspending or probating the sentence. The range of sentencing the jury could
consider was a minimum of six months and a maximum of two years’ confinement, and up to a
$10,000 fine. The jury assessed a sentence of nine months and a $7,500 fine. Thus, the jury
assessed a shorter sentence than requested by the State, and a sentence only three months greater
than the minimum it was required to assess. Further, the evidence demonstrated a fraudulent
scheme by a trusted employee that deprived the victim store owners of approximately $13,000 in
cash and approximately $30,000 in inventory.
16
Moreover, the jury heard evidence during the punishment phase that as a result of
Appellant’s actions, the store owner was required to take out a $65,000 line of credit and invest
$95,000 from his IRA to keep the business afloat. At the time of trial, the owner was still paying
$20,000 per year in interest alone on that debt. Despite this infusion of cash, the owners were
eventually forced to sell the store. When asked whether he wanted the jury to send Appellant to
jail or to assess probation so that Appellant could pay him back, the owner opted for incarceration.
The jury also heard evidence that Appellant had been arrested for two prior DWI’s, and had been
in rehab for cocaine abuse numerous times. Evidence was also presented that Appellant had
stolen up to $700 from a co-worker’s purse while on a business trip for the store, and had stolen up
to $4,500 in merchandise from one former employer and an unspecified amount from another. In
light of this evidence, we conclude that the State’s erroneous reference to “judgments,” which was
followed promptly by an instruction to disregard, could not have had any appreciable effect on the
sentence imposed.
Any error was isolated, and the trial court took immediate curative action in instructing the
jury to disregard. The jury assessed punishment in the lower half of the available range and only
three months greater than the minimum required. Under these circumstances, the trial court was
reasonable in believing that its instruction to disregard was effective and that Appellant suffered
no prejudice from the prosecutor’s comment. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the request for a mistrial. Issue Three is overruled.
Cumulative Error
In Issue Four, Appellant argues the cumulative effect of the prosecutor’s improper
arguments was so prejudicial that he was denied due process and a fair trial.
17
Cumulative error concerns performance of a harm analysis once multiple errors have been
established. See Chamberlain v. State, 998 S.W.2d 230, 238 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). The only
“errors” we have identified were the isolated reference to Bernie Madoff in the guilt-innocence
phase and the isolated reference to other “judgments” in the punishment phase, both of which we
have determined were cured by prompt instructions to disregard. Having already determined
Appellant either waived or failed to establish any error, there can be no cumulative error or harm.
See Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 30 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (rejecting appellant’s argument that
cumulative effect of errors at trial denied him the right to a fair trial where the court had previously
rejected each of appellant’s individual arguments). Issue Four is overruled.
CONCLUSION
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice
July 29, 2015
Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
18