conviction when the trial court allowed an out-of-county juror to remain on the jury over the defendant’s request for a mistrial; the defendant waived- any challenge to the juror based on her residency by not making an inquiry during voir dire). The State adduced no evidence about which county the juror moved to, such that the 'trial court might be able to rationally infer that distance would preclude service. And the State adduced no evidence as to whether the out-of-county juror was actually one of the eight jurors who failed to appear. Because the heavy burden of demonstrating manifest necessity is on: the State, the absence of evidence about whether the out-of-county juror could be available upon reasonable notice weighs against the State. See Ex parte Garza, 337 S.W.3d at 916 (<HOLDING>). The State has not established that the trial
holding that defendant failed to meet the burden of strict proof required to show abandonment holding district court order of restitution failed for lack of proof when government failed to meet burden holding that the insured failed to meet its burden where the insurer had reserved its rights to assert coverage defenses holding that the state failed to meet its burden when the record failed to show that the jurors would or would not be available after a weeks continuance holding that the state could not meet its burden of proving harmless error where the record did not reveal the substance of the trial courts unrecorded conversations with prospective jurors