jury charge error in Texas

2026Where, as here, the defendant did not object to the alleged jury charge error in the trial court, the defendant must demonstrate on appeal that any error caused “egregious harm” to obtain relief.3 Id. (quotation omitted).

2025“If a defendant timely objects to the alleged jury-charge error, the record need only show ‘some harm’ to 46 obtain relief.” Alcoser, 663 S.W.3d at 165 (quoting Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 ).

2026“Jury-charge error is egregiously harmful if it affects the very basis of the case, deprives the defendant of a valuable right, or vitally affects a defensive theory.” Id. (quoting Stuhler v. State, 218 S.W.3d 706, 719 (Tex. Crim.

2026“Jury-charge error is egregiously harmful if it affects the very basis of the case, deprives the defendant of a valuable right, or vitally affects a defensive theory.” Id. (quoting Stuhler v. State, 218 S.W.3d 706, 719 (Tex. Crim.

2026“Jury-charge error is egregiously harmful if it affects the very basis of the case, deprives the defendant of a valuable right, or vitally affects a defensive theory.” Id. (quoting Stuhler v. State, 218 S.W.3d 706, 719 (Tex. Crim.

2025“Jury-charge error is egregiously harmful if it affects the very basis of the case, deprives the defendant of a valuable right, or vitally affects a defensive theory.” Id. (quoting Stuhler v. State, 218 S.W.3d 706, 719 (Tex. Crim.

2022Ann. art. 21.03. 17 sexual assault requires the State to prove the sexual assault occurred without the victim’s consent.28 When we evaluate charge error, we first evaluate whether an error exists.29 If an error occurred, we must then analyze the error for harm.30 If the error was preserved by a proper and timely-filed objection, we review harm.31 But if the error was not preserved—which is the case here—the defendant must show the charge error resulted in egregious harm.32 “Jury-charge error is egregiously harmful if it affects the very basis of the case, deprives the defendant of a valuable r

2022Because Nelson did not object to the alleged jury charge error that he asserts on appeal, the appropriate harm standard is egregious harm. 20 charge of evading arrest or detention “result[ed] in confusion to the jury when it came to deciding the second count of [his] indictment.” A jury charge must not simply “avoid misleading or confusing the jury”; rather, it must “lead and prevent confusion.” Hutch v. State, 922 S.W.2d 166, 170 (Tex. Crim.

2021If a defendant objects to the jury charge error at trial, as was the case here, he will obtain relief if the record shows he suffered “some harm.” See Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (1984) (op. on reh’g). 9 Wilson v. State, 391 S.W.3d 131, 138 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2012, no pet.) (citing Abdnor, 871 S.W.2d at 731–32)).

2008This case must be analyzed under the standard of Almanza v. State, which in turn relied upon Article 36.19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.12 Under Almanza, unobjected-to jury charge error will not result in reversal of a conviction in the absence of “egregious harm.” 13 In examining the record for egregious harm, vel non, a reviewing court should consider (as the court of appeals did in the instant case) 1) the entire jury charge, 2) the state of the evidence, including the contested issues and the weight of the probative evidence, 3) the final arguments of the parties, and 4) any other rel

2025The concurrence asserts that, without an explicit instruction that the jury must find that 44 See Marshall, 479 S.W.3d at 846 (Yeary, J., concurring and dissenting, but dissenting on the issue in question) (“The Court concludes that a finding that Appellant impeded Shawne’s breathing amounts to a finding of ‘bodily injury per se[,]’ and on that basis it holds that Appellant suffered no egregious harm by the jury charge error for Almanza purposes.

2025The concurrence asserts that, without an explicit instruction that the jury must find that 44 See Marshall, 479 S.W.3d at 846 (Yeary, J., concurring and dissenting, but dissenting on the issue in question) (“The Court concludes that a finding that Appellant impeded Shawne’s breathing amounts to a finding of ‘bodily injury per se[,]’ and on that basis it holds that Appellant suffered no egregious harm by the jury charge error for Almanza purposes.

2017See Kirsch, 357 S.W.3d at 651 (explaining that, if a jury-charge instruction “is not derived from the [penal] code, it is not ‘applicable law”’ under Article 36.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (alteration in original) (quoting Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204, 214 (Tex. Crim.

2016Since this is an alleged jury charge error, however, whether this argument has been preserved “is not relevant until harm is assessed because the degree of harm required for reversal depends on whether the error was preserved.” Kirsch v. State, 357 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Tex. Crim.

2022“Jury-charge error is egregiously harmful if it affects the very basis of the case, deprives the defendant of a valuable right, or vitally affects a defensive theory.” Marshall, 479 S.W.3d at 843 ; see Arteaga, 521 S.W.3d at 338 ; Villarreal v. State, 453 S.W.3d 429, 433 (Tex. Crim.

2018If the jury charge error has not been properly preserved by an objection or request for instruction, as it was not here, the error must be “fundamental” and requires reversal only if it was “so egregious and created such harm that the defendant was deprived of a fair and impartial trial.” Marshall, 479 S.W.3d at 843 ; accord Villarreal v. State, 453 S.W.3d 429, 433 (Tex. Crim.

2018App. 2012) (“We have generally held that, if a jury-charge instruction ‘is not derived from the [penal] code, it is not “applicable law”’ under art. 36.14[3].”) (quoting Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204, 214 (Tex. Crim.

2017See Kirsch, 357 S.W.3d at 651 (explaining that, if a jury-charge instruction “is not derived from the [penal] code, it is not ‘applicable law”’ under Article 36.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (alteration in original) (quoting Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204, 214 (Tex. Crim.

2020A jury charge error that was unobjected-to will not result in reversal of a conviction in the absence of “egregious harm.” Allen v. State, 253 S.W.3d 260, 264 (Tex. Crim.

2014Jury-charge error is egregiously harmful if it affects the very basis of the case, deprives the defendant of a valuable right, or vitally affects a defensive theory. 25 Allen v. State, 253 S.W.3d 260, 264 (Tex. Crim.

2022In this case, Baites preserved error “with a timely objection”; therefore, we analyze the jury- charge error for “some harm as a result of the error.” Sanchez v. State, 376 S.W.3d 767, 774 (Tex. Crim.

2022If “an error is preserved with a timely objection . . . then the jury-charge error requires reversal if the appellant suffered some harm as a result of the error.” Sanchez v. State, 376 S.W.3d 767, 774 (Tex. Crim.

2022App. 2008)). 14 “Jury-charge error is egregiously harmful if it affects the very basis of the case, deprives the defendant of a valuable right, or vitally affects a defensive theory.” Ambrose, 487 S.W.3d at 597 (quoting Marshall v. State, 479 S.W.3d 840, 843 (Tex. Crim.

2019Consequently, the jury charge error was not preserved, and reversal is required only if the error was “so egregious and created such harm that the defendant was deprived of a fair and impartial trial.” See Marshall, 479 S.W.3d at 843 ; Villarreal, 453 S.W.3d at 433; Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 ; see also State v. Ambrose, 487 S.W.3d 587, 595 (Tex. Crim.

2022When, as in this case, the alleged jury charge error was not objected to, we reverse only if the error “was so egregious and created such harm that the defendant ‘has not had a fair and impartial trial.’” Barrios v. State, 283 S.W.3d 348, 350 (Tex. Crim.

2022When, as in this case, the alleged jury charge error was not objected to, we will reverse only if an error “was so egregious and created such harm that the defendant ‘has not had a fair and impartial trial.’” Barrios v. State, 283 S.W.3d 348, 350 (Tex. Crim.

2023When, as in this case, the alleged jury charge error was not objected to, we reverse only if the error “was so egregious and created such harm that appellant was denied a fair trial.” Warner v. State, 245 S.W.3d 458, 461 (Tex. Crim.

2015In analyzing harm from a jury charge error, neither the State nor the defense has a burden to show harm, learner v. State, 245 S.W.3d 458, 462, 464 (Tex. Crim.

2022Vega v. State, 394 S.W.3d 514, 519 (Tex. Crim.

2021A trial court has no duty to “instruct the jury sua sponte on unrequested defensive issues because an unrequested defensive issue is not the law ‘applicable to the case.’” Vega, 394 S.W.3d at 519 .

2024Id.

2016App. 2007) (“Jury-charge error is egregiously harmful if it affects the very basis of the case, deprives the defendant of a valuable right, or vitally affects a defensive theory.”); Sanchez v. State, 209 S.W.3d 117, 121 (Tex. Crim.

2022App. 1996). 30 Middleton v. State, 125 S.W.3d 450, 453-54 (Tex. Crim.

2016“Jury-charge error is egregiously harmful if it affects the very basis of the case, deprives the defendant of a valuable right, or vitally affects a defensive theory.” Id. (citing Stuhler v. State, 218 S.W.3d 706, 719 (Tex. Crim.

2026However, rather than characterize this as a jury charge error, we interpret the Supreme Court cases related to this particular issue to have broader due process implications.”), with Olivas v. State, 202 S.W.3d 137, 145 (Tex. Crim.

2025Joshua Dornell Mayes v. The State of Texas Page 4 The Court of Criminal Appeals has outlined four factors that reviewing courts should consider when determining whether a jury-charge error resulted in egregious harm: “1) the charge itself; 2) the state of the evidence including contested issues and the weight of the probative evidence; 3) arguments of counsel; and 4) any other relevant information revealed by the record of the trial as a whole.” Olivas, 202 S.W.3d at 144 .

2024Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 122 (Tex. Crim.

2024Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 122 (Tex. Crim.

2021Arteaga, 521 S.W.3d at 338 ; Marshall, 479 S.W.3d at 843 ; Arrington v. State, 451 S.W.3d 834, 840 (Tex. Crim.

2015In an opinion dated August 14, 2013, this court reversed appellant’s conviction after concluding appellant was denied a fair trial based on the trial court’s failure to include a unanimity instruction in the jury charge and, thus, was egregiously harmed. 1 See Arrington v. State, 413 S.W.3d 106 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013), rev’d & remanded, ___ 1 On appeal, the State conceded the lack of such an instruction in the jury charge was error. 04-12-00430-CR S.W.3d ___, No. PD-1448-13, 2015 WL 170110 (Tex. Crim.

2022Jury-charge error stems from the denial of a defendant's right to have the trial court provide the jury with instructions correctly setting forth the "law applicable to the case." Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57, 62 (Tex. Crim.

2013Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57, 62 (Tex.Crim.App.1998).

2026Price v. State, 457 S.W.3d 437, 440 (Tex. Crim.

2025Price v. State, 457 S.W.3d 437, 440 (Tex. Crim.

2023Mendez v. State, 545 S.W.3d 548, 552 (Tex. Crim.

2022Mendez, 545 S.W.3d at 552 ; see Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim.

2015Boatland of Houston, Inc. v. Bailey, 609 S.W.2d 743 , 749–50 (Tex.1980); Aquila Southwest Pipeline, Inc. v. Harmony Exploration, Inc., 48 S.W.3d 225, 232 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2001, rev. denied).

2004Star Enter. v. Marze , 61 S.W.3d 449, 456 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, pet. denied) (citing Boatland of Houston, Inc. v. Bailey , 609 S.W.2d 743 , 749–50 (Tex. 1980)).

2024See id. at 772, 774 ; Manrrique v. State, No. 02-19-00458-CR, 2021 WL 4205011 , at *11 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 16, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

2018Summary Having considered all of the factors described above, we cannot conclude that the alleged jury-charge error “affects the very basis of the case, deprives the defendant of a valuable right, or vitally affects a defensive theory,” see Arteaga, 521 S.W.3d at 338 , or that the alleged error caused 9 Payton “actual rather than theoretical harm,” see Cosio, 353 S.W.3d at 777 .

2015In either situation, the actual degree of harm is evaluated by taking into account “(1) the jury charge as a whole, (2) the arguments of counsel, (3) the entirety of the evidence, and (4) other relevant factors present in the record.” Reeves, 420 S.W.3d at 816 . -3- 04-14-00618-CR ANALYSIS Article 38.22, § 6 Instruction In his first issue, Little contends the trial court erred by denying his request for the inclusion of a jury charge instruction pursuant to article 38.22, § 6 (voluntariness instruction).

2015In analyzing harm resulting from a jury charge error, “[n]either the State nor the defense has a burden to prove harm.” Reeves, 420 S.W.3d at 816 ; accord Wooten, 400 S.W.3d at 606 ; Trevino, 100 S.W.3d at 241 (recognizing lack of burdens in harm analysis and “the appellate court should make its own assessment as to whether harm occurred”).

2018This means, we have said, that courts must ask whether the defendant has suffered "some actual, rather than [merely] theoretical harm from the error." Arline v. State , 721 S.W.2d 348 , 351 (Tex. Crim.

1988We are, therefore, restricted to the determination of whether the jury charge error was so harmful that appellant was denied a fair and impartial trial in that he suffered egregious harm. *525 Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348, 351 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1984).