character of the alleged error in Texas

2026In determining whether the erroneous admission of hearsay affected a defendant’s substantial rights, the following nonexclusive factors are considered: “the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence; the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict; the existence and degree of additional evidence indicating guilt; whether - 14 - the state emphasized the complained-of error; the trial court’s instructions; the theory of the case; and, relevant voir dire.” Cook v. State, 665 S.W.3d 595 , 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023) (citing Motilla v. State, 7

2024App. 2016). 12 In analyzing whether a jury’s decision was adversely impacted by alleged error, the reviewing court “should consider everything in the record, including any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury’s consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case.” Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex. Crim.

2026In determining whether a defendant’s substantial rights were affected, we “consider everything in the record, including any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury’s consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case.” Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862, 867 (Tex. Crim.

2026When assessing harm, the reviewing court considers “everything in the record, including any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury’s consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case.” Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862, 867 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

2026App. 2014) (“Important factors [in a Rule 44.2(b) harm analysis] include the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case, and may include whether the State emphasized the error and whether overwhelming evidence of guilt was present.”) (citing Bagheri v. State, 119 S.W.3d 755, 763 (Tex. Crim.

2023In determining whether Appellant was harmed by the erroneous admission of evidence, we would consider “(1) the character of the alleged error and how it might be connected to other evidence; (2) the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict; (3) the existence and degree of additional evidence showing guilt; and (4) whether the State emphasized the complained-of error.” Maillart, 2022 WL 970334 , at *17 (citing Bagheri v. State, 119 S.W.3d 755 , 762–63 (Tex. Crim.

2024Haley v. State, 173 S.W.3d 510, 518 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

2014We –23– consider, among other relevant factors, the “testimony or physical evidence admitted for the [fact finder’s] consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with the other evidence in the case.” Haley v. State, 173 S.W.3d 510, 518 (Tex. Crim.

2026“In making this determination, we consider: the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence; the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict; the existence and degree of additional evidence supporting the verdict; and whether the State emphasized the error.” Id. (citing Macedo v. State, 629 S.W.3d 237 , 240 (Tex. Crim.

2025“In making this determination, we consider: (1) the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence; (2) the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict; (3) the existence and degree of additional evidence indicating guilt; and (4) whether the State emphasized the complained of error.” Id.

2024In making this determination, we consider “everything in the record, including any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury’s consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case, the jury instructions, the State’s theory and any defensive theories, closing arguments, voir dire, and whether the State emphasized the error.” Easley, 424 S.W.3d at 542 (quoting Rich v. State, 160 S.W.3d 575 , 577–78 (Tex. Crim.

2013When conducting a Rule 44.2(b) harm 6 analysis based upon the erroneous admission of evidence, an appellate court should consider everything in the record, including “any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury’s consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case, the jury instructions, the State’s theory and any defensive theories, closing arguments, voir dire, and whether the State emphasized the error.” Rich v. State, 160 S.W.3d 575 , 577–78 (Tex. Crim.

2025We also consider “the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case, and may include whether the State emphasized the error and whether overwhelming evidence of guilt was present.” Schmutz v. State, 440 S.W.3d 29, 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Barshaw, 342 S.W.3d at 94 .

2018We also consider "the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case, and *399 may include whether the State emphasized the error and whether overwhelming evidence of guilt was present." Id. ; Barshaw , 342 S.W.3d at 94 .

2024In making this determination, we consider “everything in the record, including any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury’s consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case, the jury instructions, the State’s theory and any defensive theories, closing arguments, voir dire, and whether the State emphasized the error.” Easley, 424 S.W.3d at 542 (quoting Rich v. State, 160 S.W.3d 575 , 577–78 (Tex. Crim.

2015Any error in prohibiting counsel from asking proper questions during voir dire is generally considered non-constitutional error.26 Non-constitutional error that does not affect a defendant’s substantial rights must be disregarded.27 To determine whether a defendant’s substantial rights were affected, we must assess whether the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.28 In assessing harm from the denial of a proper question to the venire, we are to examine the record in a manner similar to how we examine the record when assessing harm from err

2009We “consider everything in the record, including any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury’s consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case.” Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Shook v. State, 172 S.W.3d 36, 41 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005, no pet.); accord Geuder v. State, 142 S.W.3d 372, 376 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd).

2009We "consider everything in the record, including any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury's consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case." Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Shook v. State, 172 S.W.3d 36, 41 (Tex. App.-Waco 2005, no pet.); accord Geuder v. State, 142 S.W.3d 372, 376 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd).

2022In assessing the likelihood that the jury’s decision was adversely affected by the error, we must “consider everything in the record, including any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury’s consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case.” Id. –16– Viewing the entirety of the evidence, appellant’s self-defense story was undermined by evidence other than the complained-of testimony throughout trial.

2021In assessing the likelihood that the jury’s decision was adversely affected by the error, we must “consider everything in the record, including any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury’s consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case.” Id.

2025We also consider “the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case, and may include whether the State emphasized the error and whether overwhelming evidence of guilt was present.” Schmutz v. State, 440 S.W.3d 29, 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Barshaw, 342 S.W.3d at 94 .

2025“Important factors include the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case, and may include whether the State emphasized the error and whether overwhelming evidence of guilt was present.” Id.

2015We should not reverse a conviction for non-constitutional error if, after examining the record as whole, we have “fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect.” Jabari, 273 S.W.3d at 754 (citing Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Crim.App.1998)); Hankins v. State, 180 S.W.3d 177, 182 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005, pet. ref'd) (“[W]e consider the entire record, including testimony, physical evidence, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error, the State’s theory, the defensive theory, and closing arguments.”).

2012“In assessing the likelihood that the jury‟s decision was adversely affected by the error, we consider everything in the record, including any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury‟s consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error, and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case.” Id.

2009We “consider everything in the record, including any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury’s consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case.” Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Shook v. State, 172 S.W.3d 36, 41 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005, no pet.); accord Geuder v. State, 142 S.W.3d 372, 376 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd).

2009We "consider everything in the record, including any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury's consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case." Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Shook v. State, 172 S.W.3d 36, 41 (Tex. App.-Waco 2005, no pet.); accord Geuder v. State, 142 S.W.3d 372, 376 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd).

2024Gonzalez, 544 S.W.3d at 373 ; Motilla, 78 S.W.3d at 355-56; Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862, 867 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); see Llamas v. State, 12 S.W.3d 469, 471 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

2024Gonzalez v. State, 544 S.W.3d 363, 373 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); Motilla, 78 S.W.3d at 355-56; Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862, 867 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); see Llamas v. State, 12 S.W.3d 469, 471 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). 6 Analysis 1.

2023Further, on this record as a whole, Sears’s sole mention of robbery in a nonresponsive answer could have had no “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.”8 See Haley, 173 S.W.3d at 518; see also King v. State, In determining harm, we have considered (1) the character of the alleged error 8 and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence, (2) the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, (3) the existence and degree of additional evidence indicating guilt, and (4) whether the State emphasized the complained-of 11 953 S.W.2d 266, 271

2023Further, on this record as a whole, Sears’s sole mention of robbery in a nonresponsive answer could have had no “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.”8 See Haley, 173 S.W.3d at 518; see also King v. State, In determining harm, we have considered (1) the character of the alleged error 8 and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence, (2) the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, (3) the existence and degree of additional evidence indicating guilt, and (4) whether the State emphasized the complained-of 11 953 S.W.2d 266, 271

2020To assess whether the jury’s verdict was improperly influenced by the error, we “consider everything in the record, including any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury’s consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case.” Baxter v. State, 66 S.W.3d 494, 499 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. ref’d); Warr, 418 S.W.3d at 621 .

2018In determining whether the jury’s decision was adversely influenced by the error, we “consider everything in the record, including any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury’s consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case.” Baxter v. State, 66 S.W.3d 494, 499 (Tex. App.––Austin 2001, pets. ref’d); Warr, 418 S.W.3d at 621 .

2016App. 1998)); Hankins v. State, 180 S.W.3d 177, 182 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. ref’d) (“[W]e consider the entire record, including testimony, physical evidence, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error, the State’s theory, the defensive theory, and closing arguments.”).

2015We should not reverse a conviction for non-constitutional error if, after examining the record as whole, we have “fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect.” Jabari, 273 S.W.3d at 754 (citing Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Crim.App.1998)); Hankins v. State, 180 S.W.3d 177, 182 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005, pet. ref'd) (“[W]e consider the entire record, including testimony, physical evidence, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error, the State’s theory, the defensive theory, and closing arguments.”).

2010See, e.g., Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862, 867 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (the character of the alleged error is considered in assessing the likelihood that the jury's decision was adversely affected by the error); Waldo v. State, 746 S.W.2d 750, 754 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988) (the character of the alleged error impacts the evaluation of curative effect of instruction); Rodriguez v. State, No. 08-01-00103-CR, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 1237 (Tex.App.-El Paso Feb. 10, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (noting same).

2010See, e.g., Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862, 867 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (the character of the alleged error is considered in assessing the likelihood that the jury’s decision was adversely affected by the error); Waldo v. State, 746 S.W.2d 750, 754 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988) (the character of the alleged error impacts the evaluation of curative effect of instruction); Rodriguez v. State, No. 08-01-00103-CR, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 1237 (Tex.App.–El Paso Feb. 10, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (noting same).

2007Nonn v. State, 117 S.W.3d 874, 881 (Tex. Crim.

2007Nonn v. State, 117 S.W.3d 874, 881 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Motilla v. State , 78 S.W.3d 352, 355-56 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Booker v. State , 103 S.W.3d 521, 538 (Tex. App. C Fort Worth 2003, pet ref = d) (op. on reh = g).

2023Further, on this record as a whole, Sears’s sole mention of robbery in a nonresponsive answer could have had no “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.”8 See Haley, 173 S.W.3d at 518; see also King v. State, In determining harm, we have considered (1) the character of the alleged error 8 and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence, (2) the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, (3) the existence and degree of additional evidence indicating guilt, and (4) whether the State emphasized the complained-of 11 953 S.W.2d 266, 271

2019See id.

2013In conducting our analysis, we are to consider the entire record, including all evidence admitted, the nature of the evidence in favor of the verdict, and “the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case.” Id. (quoting Arroyo v. State, 123 S.W.3d 517, 520 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, pet. ref'd)).

2005In conducting our analysis, we are to consider the entire record, including all evidence admitted, the nature of the evidence in favor of the verdict, and “the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case.” Arroyo v. State, 123 S.W.3d 517, 520 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003, pet. ref'd) (citing Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex.Crim.App.2002)).

2026“In considering the likelihood that the error adversely affected the jury’s verdict, appellate courts should consider everything in the record, including the evidence admitted, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error, and how it might be considered with other evidence in the case.” Eggert v. State, 395 S.W.3d 240, 244 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.) (citing Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862, 867 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)).

2024“In considering the likelihood that the error adversely affected the jury’s verdict, appellate courts should consider everything in the record, including the evidence admitted, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error, and how it might be considered with other evidence in the 15 case.” Eggert v. State, 395 S.W.3d 240, 244 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.) (citing Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862, 867 (Tex. Crim.

2014Jones v. State, 264 S.W.3d 26, 28 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d). 6 We must reverse Sotelo’s conviction unless we determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to Sotelo’s conviction or punishment.

2013Jones v. State, 264 S.W.3d 26, 28 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref'd); Lancaster v. State, 319 S.W.3d 168, 171 (Tex.App.-Waco 2010, pet. ref'd).

2015See Sims v. State, 273 S.W.3d 291, 294-95 (Tex. Crim.

2005In assessing the likelihood that the juryÂ’s decision was adversely affected by the error, the appellate court should consider everything in the record, including any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the juryÂ’s consideration, the nature of the evidence supporting the verdict, the character of the alleged error and how it might be considered in connection with other evidence in the case. Â The reviewing court might also consider the jury instruction given by the trial judge, the StateÂ’s theory and any defensive theories, closing arguments and even voir dire, if material to appellan