charge for possible error in Texas

2025App. 2012) (“In examining the charge for possible error, reviewing courts ‘must examine the charge as a whole instead of a series of isolated and unrelated statements.’” (quoting Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 339 (Tex. Crim.

2025“In examining the charge for possible error, reviewing courts ‘must examine the charge as a whole instead of a series of isolated and unrelated statements.’” Id. (quoting Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 339 (Tex. Crim.

2026Analysis “In examining the charge for possible error, reviewing courts ‘must examine the charge as a whole instead of a series of isolated and unrelated statements.’” Vasquez v. State, 389 S.W.3d 361, 366 (Tex. Crim.

2025“In examining the charge for possible error, reviewing courts must examine the charge as a whole instead of a series of isolated and unrelated statements.” Vasquez v. State, 389 S.W.3d 361, 366 (Tex. Crim.

2022In examining the charge for possible error, reviewing courts “must examine the charge as a whole instead of a series of isolated and unrelated statements.” Id. 18 To determine whether egregious harm resulted from an erroneous charge, we examine “the entire jury charge, the state of the evidence, including the contested issues and weight of probative evidence, the argument of counsel and any other relevant information revealed by the record of the trial as a whole.” Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 .

2020In examining the charge for possible error, appellate courts “must examine the charge as a whole instead of a series of isolated and unrelated statements.” Vasquez v. State, 389 S.W.3d 361 , 366 2 Wohlford did not object or request additional instructions to the jury charge at trial. 3 Sanford had previously been convicted of the aggravated kidnapping and murder in connection with Ibarra’s abduction and subsequent death. 4 Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim.

2025See Alcoser, 663 S.W.3d at 165. i. Error “In examining the charge for possible error, appellate courts ‘must examine the charge as a whole instead of a series of isolated and unrelated statements.’” Riley v. 6 Appellant relies on Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967) for his argument that “[t]he State must prove federal constitutional error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” and it “cannot meet that burden.” Chapman is misplaced because appellant did not object to the jury charge error that he now complains about on appeal.

2025See Jimenez v. State, 32 S.W.3d 233 , 237–38 (Tex. Crim.

2015App. 1984) (op. on reh'g), overruled on other grounds by Rodriguez v. State, 758 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex. Crim.

2014See Vasquez v. State, 389 S.W.3d 361, 366 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) (“In examining the charge for possible error, reviewing courts ‘must examine the charge as a whole instead of a series of isolated and unrelated statements.’ ” (quoting Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 339 (Tex.Crim.App.1995))); Moreno v. State, 872 S.W.2d 1, 2-3 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no pet.) (“When the State proves its case in the disjunctive, the trial court should submit the charge in the disjunctive.”).

2012Vasquez Page 8 The purpose of the trial judge’s jury charge is to instruct the jurors on all of the law that is applicable to the case.8 “Because the charge is the instrument by which the jury convicts, [it] must contain an accurate statement of the law and must set out all the essential elements of the offense.”9 In examining the charge for possible error, reviewing courts “must examine the charge as a whole instead of a series of isolated and unrelated statements.” 10 The application paragraph is that portion of the jury charge that applies the pertinent penal law, abstract definitions, and