Marcus Justin Kacz v. State

Affirmed and Opinion filed June 23, 2009

Affirmed and Opinion filed June 23, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of

Appeals

____________

NO. 14-07-00841-CR

____________

MARCUS JUSTIN KACZ , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the County

Criminal Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1452778

O P I N I O N

A jury convicted Marcus Justin Kacz of deadly conduct and

sentenced him to 180 days in the Harris County Jail; however, the trial court

suspended the sentence in favor of eighteen months probation and a $400.00

fine. Kacz challenges his conviction and sentence contending that (1) the

evidence was factually insufficient to support the jury = s verdict; (2) the

trial court erred in excluding testimony about a witness = s statement

against his own penal interest; and (3) the trial court erred in denying Kacz = s request for a

mistrial after the State inquired about Kacz = s invocation of

his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. We affirm.

Facts

This case involves a series of encounters on the night of

March 23, 2007, which culminated in a physical altercation and gunfire in an

apartment-complex parking lot. Many facts about the events of that night are

in dispute. What is clear is that the complainant, Cornelio Barrera, and his

brother, Esteban Barrera, along with their friends, Saturnino Sanchez and Jenny

Arantez, were driving to an apartment complex in Pasadena after drinking at a

cantina earlier that evening. Esteban was driving Cornelio = s white Ford

Explorer. While traveling along the East Sam Houston Tollway, Esteban passed

Kacz = s vehicle, which

began following him. Kacz, an off-duty Pasadena police officer, was driving

his own unmarked pickup truck.

Several minutes later, Esteban exited the tollway and

stopped at a red light. Kacz, who had stopped behind Esteban, then got out of

his vehicle and approached the Explorer. Esteban later testified that Kacz was

saying something as he approached, but Esteban could not hear him as the driver = s side window was

closed. It is not disputed that Kacz was not in uniform, and instead was

wearing only a Polo shirt, jeans, and boots. According to Esteban, Cornelio,

and Arantez, Kacz approached the Explorer with his handgun drawn. Esteban

later testified that, fearing Kacz might shoot him, he ran the red light and

sped away.

Kacz returned to his vehicle and followed Esteban to the

apartment complex where Cornelio was living at the time. Upon reaching the

parking lot, Esteban parked the Explorer, exited the vehicle, and ran away.

The other occupants also quickly exited the Explorer. But while Arantez and

Sanchez ran away, Cornelio returned to the Explorer to get the keys. By the

time Cornelio had retrieved the keys from the Explorer = s ignition, Kacz

had arrived, gotten out of his truck, and was again approaching with his weapon

drawn. It is undisputed that Cornelio threw a bottle of beer at Kacz, and that

the two men wrestled on the ground for control of Kacz = s handgun.

Ultimately, Cornelio got away from Kacz, returned to his Explorer, and quickly

drove off. As Cornelio sped away, Kacz fired shots at the vehicle. Cornelio,

Esteban, and their friends were then quickly apprehended by officers of the

Pasadena Police Department, responding to a call involving a police officer at

the apartment complex.

For firing his handgun in Cornelio = s direction as he

drove away, Kacz was charged with one count of deadly conduct. He was tried by

a jury and convicted. The trial court imposed a sentence of 180 days in the

Harris County Jail, but suspended the sentence in favor of eighteen months

probation and a fine of $400.00. This timely appeal followed.

Analysis

Kacz appeals his conviction contending that (1) the

evidence was factually insufficient to support the jury = s verdict; (2) the

trial court erred in excluding testimony about a witness = s statement

against his own penal interest; and (3) the trial court erred in denying Kacz = s request for a mistrial

after the State inquired about Kacz = s invocation of

his right to remain silent and his right to counsel.

I. Exclusion

of Testimony

Kacz contends that the trial court erred in excluding

testimony by Pasadena Police Detective Matt Breugger about statements Saturnino

Sanchez made on the night of the incident. Specifically, Kacz sought to admit

testimony by Detective Breugger that Sanchez told him that the occupants of the

Explorer knew that the driver following them was a police officer. According

to Kacz, this testimony would support his argument that his pursuit of Cornelio

was justified because he was knowingly evading a police officer. [1]

At trial, the State objected to the testimony, and the

following exchange occurred:

DEFENSE: And

during that interview did he indicate to you C

PROSECUTOR: Object. They are

trying to elicit hearsay testimony. This witness has never been at this trial.

THE COURT: Oh,

this witness hadn = t testified?

DEFENSE: No, sir. It = s a statement of disinterest [sic], [2]

Your honor. It = s an exception to hearsay.

THE COURT: Oh,

that = s sustained.

DEFENSE: May

we approach, Your honor?

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

(Conference at the bench)

DEFENSE: This witness = statement is while they are

fleeing from this white car there = s a conversation. And they indicate in the car that they

know it = s a cop, they believe it to be a

police officer, therefore, they are in the course of evading. We will call C if need be we will call this

witness. This witness is under subpoena; however, we have reason to believe he

is C

THE COURT: No,

I = m not allowing

that question.

When reviewing a trial court = s decision to

admit or exclude evidence, we apply the familiar abuse‑of‑discretion

standard. Ramos v. State , 245 S.W.3d 410 , 417 B 18 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2008). A trial court does not abuse its discretion if its evidentiary

ruling was within the A zone of reasonable disagreement, @ and was correct

under any legal theory applicable to the case. Winegarner v. State , 235

S.W.3d 787, 790 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Bargas v. State , 252 S.W.3d 876,

889 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). Thus, because

the trial court is usually in the best position to decide whether evidence

should be admitted or excluded, we must uphold its ruling unless its

determination was so clearly wrong as to lie outside the zone within which

reasonable persons might disagree. See Winegarner , 235 S.W.3d at 790 ; Hartis

v. State , 183 S.W.3d 793 , 801 B 02 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th

Dist.] 2005, no pet.).

On appeal, Kacz contends that the trial court should have

admitted the testimony as a statement against the declarant = s penal interest,

an exception to the hearsay rule. See Tex. R. Evid. 803(24). [3]

Kacz argues that Sanchez = s statement qualifies as against his penal

interest because he effectively admitted to evading arrest. See Tex.

Penal Code Ann. ' 38.04(a) (Vernon 2003). But the State

maintains that there is no evidence that Sanchez was himself evading a police

officer, as it was Esteban who was driving at the time. The State also

contends that nothing about the statement shows that Kacz was attempting a

lawful arrest or detention.

In deciding whether a statement is admissible as a

statement against interest in criminal cases, courts employ a two-step

process. See Bingham v. State , 987 S.W.2d 54, 57 (Tex. Crim. App.

1999). First, the court determines whether the statement is truly against the

declarant = s interest. Id. Second, the court must

determine A if there are corroborating circumstances that clearly

indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. @ Id. If

both criteria are met, the statement is admissible. Id.

We begin with the question of whether Sanchez = s statement

exposed him to criminal liability. See id. For the exception to apply,

Sanchez = s statements must

be against his own penal interest. See Guidry v. State , 9 S.W.3d 133,

149 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). While Sanchez = s admissions may

also implicate someone else = s interest, such as a third party or co‑actor,

unless the statement against that other person = s interest is also

sufficiently against his own interest, it cannot be considered reliable. See

id. A statement that incriminates another but not the declarant himself

does not merit an exception to the hearsay rule. See id.

A person commits the offense of evading arrest or detention

if he intentionally flees from a person he knows is a peace officer attempting

lawfully to arrest or detain him. Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 38.04(a), (b)(1);

Hazkell v. State , 616 S.W.2d 204, 205 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Even if

we assume that Sanchez knew that Kacz was a police officer, culpability would

still require proof that Sanchez intended to flee from him, and that Kacz = s attempt to

arrest or detain Sanchez was, in fact, lawful. Hazkell v. State , 616

S.W.2d at 205 .

Sanchez told Detective Breugger that there had been a

conversation in the Explorer while Kacz was pursuing it in which the occupants

discussed their belief that Kacz was a police officer. At that point, however,

Sanchez himself was not fleeing Kacz; he was merely a passenger. See Miles

v. State , 918 S.W.2d 511, 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (holding that when

declarant was merely present during commission of offense, his statement does

not subject him to criminal liability and thus is not admissible under Rule

803(24)).

But Kacz relies on Marron v. State , No.

01-02-00601-CR, 2003 WL 1938210 (Tex. App. C Houston [1st

Dist.] Apr. 24, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication), to

show that even a mere passenger can be liable for the crime of evading arrest.

In Marron , the defendant was the passenger in a stolen car pursued by

two marked police cars with sirens sounding and lights flashing. Id. at

*3. After the driver ran the stolen car into a ditch, Marron tried to leap

from the vehicle and flee on foot despite specific instructions from the

pursuing deputies to A Stop, get on the ground. @ Id . at

*4. The court of appeals noted that Marron A ignored their commands @ and A refused to comply

with a lawful order, knowing that the order came from a police officer. @ Id . This

evidence, the Marron court held, was sufficient to uphold his conviction

for evading detention. Id .

In this case, Sanchez fled on foot once the Explorer

reached the apartment complex. Kacz argues that, like the passenger in the

stolen car in Marron , Sanchez became liable for evading arrest as soon

as he ran from the Explorer. But while Cornelio admits that Kacz identified

himself as a police officer to him when he returned to the Explorer to retrieve

his keys, at that point, Sanchez was already gone from the scene. Unlike the

passenger in Marron , Sanchez never received an order to stop from

someone he undoubtedly knew to be a police officer.

Moreover, there is nothing in the evidence to establish

that Kacz had a lawful basis to arrest or detain anyone in the Explorer. Kacz

makes several references on appeal to the amount of alcohol consumed by Esteban

and Cornelio on the night of the event, but that evidence was discovered only

after they were apprehended C after the incident at the apartment

complex. Kacz did not testify that he suspected the Explorer = s driver was

intoxicated when he encountered the vehicle on the tollway; and he offered no

evidence that he believed any of the occupants were intoxicated before the

police had arrested them.

The only reason Kacz gives for attempting to detain the

Explorer was that the driver had failed to stop and give information after an

accident, citing Transportation Code section 550.021(a). But this section

expressly applies only to accidents involving personal injury or death, and

there was no evidence that any alleged collision on the tollway caused either.

See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. _ 550.021 (Vernon 2008). Kacz may

have intended to refer to section 550.022, which requires only damage to an

involved vehicle to trigger the duty to stop and give information. See Tex.

Transp. Code Ann. _ 550.022 (Vernon 2008). But although Pasadena Police

Sergeant Wesley Fojt testified that Kacz told him that A somebody had hit

him @ while he was

driving on the tollway, Sergeant Fojt also testified that he did not see any A obvious dents or

damage @ to Kacz = s truck. Pasadena

Police Detective Terry Sulphin also testified that he examined and photographed

both the Explorer and Kacz = s truck, and observed no damage. Based on

this evidence, the trial court could have concluded that there had been no

collision on the tollway at all, and thus no lawful basis for Kacz to arrest or

detain the Explorer = s occupants. And absent a lawful basis,

Sanchez could not be culpable for evading arrest or detention. See Smith v.

State , 739 S.W.2d 848, 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding

Detective Breugger = s testimony because, based on the

evidence, its determination that Sanchez = s statement did not

qualify as a statement against his penal interest was within the zone of

reasonable disagreement. [4]

See Winegarner , 235 S.W.3d at 790 ; Hartis , 183 S.W.3d at 801 B 02. Kacz = s second issue is

overruled.

II. Factual

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Kacz also contends that the evidence presented at trial was

factually insufficient to support the jury = s verdict. When

reviewing a factual‑sufficiency challenge, we view all the evidence in a

neutral light. Watson v. State , 204 S.W.3d 404, 414 (Tex. Crim. App.

2006); Newby v. State , 252 S.W.3d 431, 435 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th

Dist.] 2008, pet. ref = d). We especially discuss and examine the

specific evidence that Kacz contends undermines the jury = s verdict. Sims

v. State , 99 S.W.3d 600, 603 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Newby , 252

S.W.3d at 435 . We may set aside the verdict only if the evidence is so weak

that the verdict is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust, or if the verdict is

against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Watson , 204

S.W.3d at 414 B 15; Newby , 252 S.W.3d at 435 . We may disagree

with the jury = s conclusions; however, we must avoid substituting our

judgment for that of the jury, particularly in matters of credibility. Drichas

v. State , 175 S.W.3d 795, 799 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Newby , 252

S.W.3d at 435 .

A. A Justified under

the circumstances @

A person commits the offense of deadly conduct if he

knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of one or more persons.

Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 22.05(b)(1) (Vernon 2003). In this case,

it is undisputed that Kacz fired at least two shots at Cornelio as he drove

away in the Explorer. There is no doubt that Kacz = s actions

fulfilled the requirements of the charged offense.

But Kacz argued at trial, and does so again on appeal, that

his actions were justified under the circumstances. Specifically, he insists

that he was entitled to use deadly force against Cornelio because (1) Cornelio

had attempted A unlawful deadly force @ against Kacz by

throwing a beer bottle at him, as well as attempting to grab Kacz = s handgun, and (2)

Cornelio = s actions created

a reasonable fear in Kacz that, if permitted to escape, Cornelio would likely

cause serious bodily injury to an unarmed civilian. Kacz further argues that,

viewing A the totality of

the evidence in a neutral light, @ the jury = s verdict refuting

these justifications is A clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. @

A police officer is justified in using force against

another when and to the degree the officer reasonably believes the force is

immediately necessary to make an arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, if:

(1) the officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful; and (2) before using

force, the officer manifests his purpose to arrest and identifies himself as a

police officer, unless he reasonably believes his purpose and identity are

already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be

arrested. Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 9.51(a) (Vernon

2003). Additionally, a police officer is justified in using deadly force

against another when and to the degree the officer reasonably believes the

deadly force is immediately necessary to make an arrest, or to prevent escape

after arrest, when the requirements for the use of non-deadly force under

subsection (a) are met, and if: (1) the officer reasonably believes the conduct

for which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of deadly

force; or (2) the officer reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that

the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to the

actor or another if the arrest is delayed. Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 9.51(c) (Vernon

2003). The charge of the court included instructions based on these provisions

of the Penal Code, and Kacz = s only objection to them related to the

inclusion of the word A deadly @ in relation to

the force used by Kacz. The trial court overruled this objection, and Kacz

does not mention it in this appeal. [5]

Kacz contends the evidence demonstrates that his use of

deadly force was justified by Cornelio = s use of unlawful

deadly force. Specifically, Kacz points to evidence that Cornelio threw a beer

bottle at him as he exited the Explorer in the parking lot, and later tried to

grab Kacz = s handgun as they wrestled on the ground. But a

fundamental requirement of both section 9.51(a) and (c) [6]

is Kacz = s reasonable

belief that he is attempting a lawful arrest. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 9.51(a), (c).

Kacz contends that Cornelio had A violated the law

with impunity, @ committing A multiple felonies. @ These A felonies @ appear to have

included failing to stop and give information under Transportation Code Section

550.021(a)(1 B 3), evading arrest or detention under Penal Code

section 38.04(a), and either aggravated assault of a public servant or

robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. '' 22.02(b)(2)

(Vernon 2003 & Supp. 2008) & 29.03(a) (Vernon 2003).

As we have already discussed, there was no evidence of

either death, injury, or vehicular damage resulting from the alleged collision

on the tollway to provide a reasonable basis for Kacz = s

failure-to-stop-and-give-information complaint. See Tex. Transp. Code

Ann. ' _ 550.021 B .022. Absent this

offense, Kacz cannot reasonably claim that Cornelio evaded a lawful arrest or

detention, as there was no underlying offense to justify an arrest or

detention. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 38.04(a).

Consequently, Kacz = s only lawful basis for arresting Cornelio

would be based on the confrontation in the parking lot.

On that note, Kacz contends that Cornelio committed

aggravated assault of a public servant during the incident in the parking lot,

and that this offense justified his use of deadly force. For Cornelio to be

liable for that offense, however, the assault has to occur A while the public

servant is lawfully discharging an official duty . . . . @ Tex. Penal Code

Ann. ' 22.02(b)(2)(B).

But as Kacz was not attempting a lawful arrest, there were no grounds on which

the jury could have found for Kacz based on aggravated assault of a peace

officer. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 22.02(b)(2)(B).

Kacz also contends that Cornelio = s actions in the

struggle for Kacz = s handgun amount to robbery. For the jury

to find that Cornelio committed robbery, Kacz needs to show that Cornelio

intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused bodily injury to Kacz, or placed

Kacz in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, while Cornelio attempted to

exercise control over the handgun in such a manner as to deprive Kacz of the

use of his weapon. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. '' 29.02(a) (Vernon

2003), 31.03(a), (b) (Vernon 2003 & Supp. 2008) & 31.01(4)(B) (Vernon

2003 & Supp. 2008). In this context, to A deprive @ would

specifically mean that Cornelio intended to withhold Kacz = s handgun from him

permanently or for such an extended a period of time that a major portion of

the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner. Id . ' 31.01(2)(A).

The evidence concerning the struggle over the handgun is

very limited. At trial, Sergeant Fojt testified that when he first approached

Kacz in the parking lot, he was A visibly upset, @ and had abrasions

and blood on his body consistent with having been in a A scuffle. @ Fojt further

testified that Kacz told him that an occupant of the Explorer, later identified

as Cornelio, got out of the truck and A came at him @ with one hand in

his pocket. Sergeant Fojt testified to the significance of this fact, that police

officers are trained to be wary of suspects with hands in their pockets because

of the dangers associated with unseen threats. According to Fojt = s testimony, Kacz

told him that he had identified himself to his attacker as a police officer,

but that the man kept coming at him. Kacz also told him that in the ensuing

struggle for Kacz = s handgun, it had discharged. Fojt

testified that Kacz told him that the man got away from him, returned to the

Explorer, and then sped away. It was at this point, according to Fojt, that

Kacz claimed to have fired two shots at the Explorer.

Pasadena Police Detective Terry Sulphin testified that he

inspected the area where the struggle took place, which he described as A very dark. @ He also

testified that he observed a bite mark on Cornelio and a A knot @ on his head.

Detective Sulphin also saw abrasions on Kacz, as well as scuff marks on his

boots and tears in his jeans.

Sergeant Fojt testified that it was against Pasadena Police

Department policy for officers to pursue suspects in unmarked vehicles,

specifically because the person under pursuit might not know that his pursuer

was actually a police officer. Detective Sulphin testified that when

inspecting Kacz = s pickup truck, he observed a police

windbreaker wadded up on the passenger = s seat.

Cornelio testified that after Esteban had passed Kacz on

the tollway, Kacz got angry. He related that Kacz followed them for about ten

minutes before they each stopped at a redlight off of the tollway. At that

point, according to Cornelio, Kacz approached the Explorer with his handgun

drawn. Cornelio testified that Kacz told Esteban to give him the truck. Both

Esteban and Arantez testified that they feared Kacz would shoot them. At that

point, according to Esteban, he ran the red light to get away. Esteban said he

drove to the apartment complex because that was where Cornelio was living at

the time. When they arrived, Esteban and the others ran away. Cornelio also

left the Explorer, but because he feared the person following them wanted to

steal his vehicle, he went back to get the keys. After he retrieved the keys

from the ignition, Cornelio testified that Kacz pulled a gun on him. Cornelio

acknowledged that Kacz said he was a police officer, but Cornelio did not

believe him. Cornelio further testified that he refused to give his keys to

Kacz. According to Cornelio = s testimony, Kacz then hit him on the head

with the butt of his handgun. Cornelio then grabbed Kacz = s arm, and the men

fell to the ground wrestling for control of the handgun. Under cross‑examination,

Cornelio admitted to throwing a beer bottle at Kacz. He also testified that at

some point he knocked the handgun out of Kacz = s hand. At that

point, Cornelio said that he ran to the Explorer, got in, and sped away. As he

drove away, Cornelio said he heard four gunshots. He was stopped moments later

by police officers arriving at the apartment complex.

The State also presented testimony from Geraldo Salas, a

resident of the apartment complex. Mr. Salas testified that on the night of

the incident, he heard a noise from the parking lot A like an impact on

the door. @ When he looked outside, he saw what looked to be two

men fighting. Salas testified that he saw a man in a striped shirt on top of

another man, and that the man in the striped shirt had his knee on the neck of

the other man while he was hitting him. Salas testified that he did not see a

badge or any other indication that the man in the striped shirt was a police

officer. According to Salas, he then yelled at the men to stop because he was

going to call the police. At that point, Salas testified, the man in the

striped shirt said he was a police officer. Salas then went back into his

apartment and told his wife to call 9‑1‑1. Salas testified that he

then went back outside and again yelled at the men to stop fighting. At that

point, Salas said that the man in the striped shirt got off of the other man.

The man who had been on the ground then got up and ran to his SUV. Salas said

he witnessed the man in the striped shirt then fire four shots at the SUV as it

drove away.

There was no testimony that Cornelio made any attempt to

obtain Kacz = s handgun after it was knocked out of Kacz = s hand. All of

the testimony supported the conclusion that once he had freed himself, he fled

the scene. Based on this evidence, the jury could have considered the

testimony and concluded that Cornelio was not trying to rob Kacz of his gun,

but was merely attempting to defend himself until he could escape.

Finally, Kacz contends that, based on the confrontation in

the parking lot, it was reasonable to conclude that there was a A substantial risk @ that, if allowed

to escape arrest, Cornelio would cause serious bodily injury or death to Kacz

or someone else. But Kacz = s fear that Cornelio intended him harm is

belied by the fact that Cornelio was driving away from Kacz, instead of

toward him. And there was no evidence that Cornelio intended harm to anyone

else. It was reasonable for the jury to believe he was simply trying to get

away from Kacz. [7]

B. Credibility

Kacz argues forcefully on appeal that he presented a vastly

more credible case at trial and that the evidence supporting the verdict is

factually insufficient precisely because credibility weighs so heavily in his

favor. He refers to Detective Bruegger = s testimony that

Cornelio gave a false name and someone else = s identification

when he was arrested. Other testimony revealed that Cornelio also gave the

police incorrect information about whether he had been driving the Explorer,

where he resided, what type of vehicle Kacz drove, and how many people had been

following the Explorer, among other things. Indeed, Cornelio admitted at trial

that he had lied to the police the night of the incident.

But none of Cornelio = s lies expose any

justification for Kacz firing upon him as he drove away. Neither does Pasadena

police officer Jose Ortiz = s testimony that Cornelio told him that

Kacz had identified himself as a police officer and motioned for him to pull

over before the Explorer reached the complex.

More pointedly, Kacz = s credibility was

likewise less than impeccable. Though he insisted that the Explorer had

collided with his truck on the tollway, there was no other evidence C physical or

testimonial C that such a collision ever happened. [8]

Our review should not intrude upon the jury = s role as the sole

judge of the weight and credibility given to any witness = s testimony. See

Fuentes v. State , 991 S.W.2d 267 , 271 B 72 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1999); Bargas v. State , 252 S.W.3d 876, 887 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th

Dist.] May 13, 2008, no pet.). The jury was free to weigh the credibility of

Kacz = s and the other

witnesses = testimony, including Cornelio = s, as well as the

testimony regarding the physical evidence.

Even considering the evidence that appellant contends is

contradictory to the State = s case, we cannot say that the jury = s verdict in this

case was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Nor can

it be said that, in light of this evidence, the jury = s verdict was

manifestly unfair or unjust. Consequently, the evidence was factually

sufficient to justify the jury = s verdict. See Watson , 204 S.W.3d

at 414‑15; Newby , 252 S.W.3d at 435 . We overrule Kacz = s

factual-sufficiency issue.

III. Denial

of Mistrial

In his third issue, Kacz contends that the trial court

erred in denying his request for a mistrial after the State inquired about Kacz = s invocation of

his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. The State replies that

the trial court sustained Kacz = s objection, and appropriately instructed

the jury not to consider the question. But Kacz argues that this instruction

was insufficient to counteract the prejudicial effect of the State = s question.

At trial, while the State was questioning Sergeant Fojt

about his conversation with Kacz in the parking lot on the night of the

incident, the following exchange took place:

PROSECUTOR: Were you able to

ask Officer Kacz any follow-up questions about what he told you?

SGT. FOJT: No.

We had discussed it briefly when I first got there.

PROSECUTOR: All right. He

stopped talking to you and asked for a lawyer, didn = t he?

DEFENSE: I = m going to object,

Judge, and ask that we approach.

(Conference at the bench)

DEFENSE: I = m going to have to object and ask

for an instruction. We have to object. We asked those questions, I = m going to C

THE COURT: I = m going to tell

them not to consider it.

PROSECUTOR: They = re listening to all of this.

First, he = s not under arrest; and if he stops

talking to this officer because he wanted counsel, that = s just a fact. It is not C it is not unduly prejudicial to

him.

THE COURT: I

understand.

PROSECUTOR: I just C Your Honor, I have no other way to

explain why the interrogation C why the questions stopped, but they are listening to all of this on

cross-examination.

DEFENSE: So,

let the record reflect that I = ve asked for a mistrial.

THE COURT: I = m not going to.

DEFENSE: I

understand.

(Questions resume)

THE COURT: Ladies

and gentlemen, you are instructed not to consider the last question. It was

asked, it wasn = t answered, so you don = t have to consider

that question for any purpose.

We review the trial court = s denial of a

mistrial for an abuse of discretion, keeping in mind that a mistrial is

required only in extreme circumstances when the prejudicial nature of the

objectionable matter presented is incurable. Hawkins v. State , 135

S.W.3d 72 , 76 B 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Austin v. State , 222

S.W.3d 801, 815 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. ref = d). Here, because

the trial court sustained Kacz = s objection and instructed the jury to

disregard the question, but denied Kacz = s request for a

mistrial, we must determine whether the State = s question was so

harmful that the case must be retried. See Hawkins , 135 S.W.3d at 77 .

To do so, we balance three factors: (1) the prejudicial effect of the question;

(2) the curative measures taken; and (3) the likelihood of Kacz = s conviction

absent the improper question. Mosley v. State , 983 S.W.2d 249, 259

(Tex. Crim. App. 1998); see Hawkins , 135 S.W.3d at 77 (adopting Mosley

factors to evaluate whether the trial court abused its discretion in

denying a mistrial); Austin , 222 S.W.3d at 815 (applying Mosley factors

when instruction to disregard was given after the State elicited testimony

barred by trial court = s ruling on motion in limine). If, as

here, the court has instructed the jury to disregard improper evidence, we

presume that the jury has followed the instruction, unless that presumption is

rebutted by contrary evidence. Thrift v. State , 176 S.W.3d 221, 224

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In determining whether the erroneous evidence mandates

a new trial, we look at the facts and circumstances of the case to see if the

trial court = s instruction cured the admission. Ladd v. State ,

3 S.W.3d 547, 567 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

Here, the prejudicial effect was minimal for two reasons.

First, the witness never answered the State = s question, so the

jury never heard whether Kacz had invoked any constitutional rights. Second,

the prosecutor = s question merely asked, A He stopped talking

to you . . . didn = t he? @ The prosecutor

never asked if Kacz actually invoked his right to silence; he merely mentioned

that Kacz A stopped talking. @ As demonstrated

on cross-examination, Kacz told Sergeant Fojt his version of the events that

night. But Sergeant Fojt was unable to test these statements or ask follow-up

questions because Kacz A stopped talking. @ The State was

seeking not to prejudice Kacz, but rather to explain the gap in Sergeant Fojt = s testimony to the

jury.

Kacz argues that the severity of the misconduct in this

case weighs heavily in his favor, relying on Justice Murry Cohen = s concurrence in Hicks

v. State , 815 S.W.2d 299, 304 (Tex. App. C Houston [1st

Dist.] 1991) ( A The prosecutor in this case violated a rule that has

been characterized by the Court of Criminal Appeals as > hornbook law = that > no reasonably

competent prosecutor = would violate. @ ), abrogated by

Motilla v. State , 78 S.W.3d 352, 357 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (standardizing

the rule that overwhelming evidence of guilt may be used as a factor to be

considered under a harm analysis for constitutional error not affecting

substantial rights). Kacz argues that this A prohibition . . .

violated @ by a A veteran @ prosecutor was

not only A anything but novel, @ but one that A any prosecutor,

let alone a veteran prosecutor, would know was impermissible. @ But the facts in

this case are clearly distinguishable from those earning Justice Cohen = s rebuke in Hicks .

During the closing argument in the Hicks trial, the State referred

repeatedly to the defendant = s failure to testify on his behalf. Id.

at 301 B 02. The defendant

objected each time, and the trial court overruled every objection. Id.

The differences between Hicks and this case are obvious, and Kacz = s reliance on it

is misplaced.

The second prong of the Mosley analysis concerns

what curative measures the trial court employed. That prong was satisfied in

this case when the trial court sustained Kacz = s objection and

instructed the jury to disregard the question.

Under the third prong, we must consider the certainty of

conviction absent the prosecutor = s question. As we

have already stated, the evidence in this case was factually sufficient for the

jury to convict Kacz absent any effect of the objectionable question. Further,

there was nothing in the record to suggest that the jury was in any way

persuaded or affected by the State = s question. See

Thrift , 176 S.W.3d at 224 ( appellant must rebut presumption pointing to evidence that the jury

failed to follow the trial court = s instructions ); see also

Phillips v. State , 130 S.W.3d 343, 356 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th

Dist.] 2004, pet. ref = d) (when the record shows no evidence to

the contrary, we assume the jury followed the trial court = s instruction to

disregard). We see no evidence that this isolated question prejudiced Kacz to

such a degree as would affect the outcome of his trial. But even if we were to

count this factor in Kacz = s favor, it would represent only one of

the Mosley factors C the other two falling squarely in the

State = s favor.

We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion

in refusing to grant a mistrial. Kacz = s third issue is

overruled.

Conclusion

For the reasons detailed above, we affirm the trial court = s judgment.

/s/ Jeff Brown

Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges, and Justices

Guzman, and Brown.

Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

[1] In this case, Kacz maintains that evading a police

offer would be a state-jail felony because Cornelio used a vehicle to flee. See

Tex. Penal Code Ann. _ 38.04(a), (b)(1) (Vernon 2003).

[2] The parties agree in their briefing that defense

counsel was arguing that Sanchez had made a A statement

against interest. @

[3] A Statement

Against Interest. A statement which was at the time of its making . . . so far

tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability . . .

that a reasonable person in declarant = s

position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. In

criminal cases, a statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal

liability is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate

the trustworthiness of the statement. @

Tex. R. Evid. 803(24).

[4] Because Sanchez = s

statement does not qualify as one against his penal interest, we do not reach

the second part of the inquiry under Rule 803(24) C the exploration of corroborating circumstances indicating the

trustworthiness of the statement.

[5] It bears noting that, on appeal, Kacz does not challenge the jury = s verdict on the basis that he was

acting in self-defense. Rather, Kacz bases his appeal solely upon the

justification provided to police officers by section 9.51 of the Penal Code. See

id.

[6] Kacz justifies his use of deadly force under section

9.51(c). But this subsection is predicated upon whether or not A the use of force would have been justified under

Subsection (a) . . . . @ Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 9.51(c). Therefore the requirements of both subsections apply.

[7] Kacz relies on Sappington v. Bartee , 195 F.3d 234 (5th Cir.

1999) (per curiam), as authority for the proposition that a peace officer is

justified in using deadly force to resist an assault by a suspect with whom he

has struggled. In Sappington , a federal-prison inmate sued a police

officer for violating his constitutional rights in the course of arresting

him. But the Fifth Circuit held that the officer was entitled to judgment as a

matter of law because the plaintiff had been convicted of an aggravated assault

of the officer arising out of the same incident. Id. at 237 . In this

case, on the other hand, Cornelio was never even charged with assaulting Kacz,

much less convicted of it. Sappington is inapplicable here. It remains

that without a legitimate cause for arrest, Kacz could not have been justified

in his use of deadly force against Cornelio under subsection 9.51(c)(1). See

Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 9.51(c).

[8] Kacz also directs us to Detective Breugger = s opinion that Cornelio had been

drinking on the night of the incident. But Sergeant Fojt testified that he

smelled alcohol on Kacz = s breath, too. There is no

evidence that either was charged with either driving under the influence or

public intoxication.