harmlessness error in Texas

2025A grave doubt exists when “the matter is so evenly balanced” that we feel “in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” Id.

2021If the reviewing court has “grave doubt” about whether the error had “substantial influence” on the outcome of the proceeding, then it “must treat the error as if it did.” Id. at 655 . “‘Grave doubt’ occurs when the matter is so evenly balanced that the reviewing court believes the record is ‘in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.’” Id. at 655–56 (quoting Burnett, 88 S.W.3d at 637–38). –6– In reviewing the record, the “critical question” is whether there is “a fair assurance that the defendant’s decision to plead guilty would not have changed had the court admonished him.” V

2020The 22 U.S. Supreme Court has defined “grave doubt” to mean “in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 435 (1995); Webb v. State, 36 S.W.3d 164 , 182–83 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (quoting O’Neal, 513 U.S. at 435 ).

2020The 22 U.S. Supreme Court has defined “grave doubt” to mean “in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 435 (1995); Webb v. State, 36 S.W.3d 164 , 182–83 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (quoting O’Neal, 513 U.S. at 435 ).

2020The 22 U.S. Supreme Court has defined “grave doubt” to mean “in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 435 (1995); Webb v. State, 36 S.W.3d 164 , 182–83 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (quoting O’Neal, 513 U.S. at 435 ).

2020In O’Neal, the U.S. Supreme Court defined “grave doubts” to mean “in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” Id.; Webb, 36 S.W.3d at 182–83 (quoting O’Neal).

2013A grave doubt is one in which “in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” Williams, 145 S.W.3d at 741 , quoting Russell v. State, 113 S.W.3d 530, 550 (Tex.App. – Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref’d).

2012A grave doubt is one in which “in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he . . . feels himself . . . in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” Williams, 145 S.W.3d at 741 , quoting Russell v. State, 113 S.W.3d 530, 550 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 2003, pet ref’d).

2026A “grave doubt” exists when, “in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” Id.

2024A “grave doubt” exists when, “in the judge’s mind, the matter 4 is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” Id.

2015“Grave doubt” means that in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced, that “he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” Id., quoting Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633, 637-638 (Tex. Crim.

2015“Grave doubt” means that in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced, that “he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” Id., quoting Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633, 637-638 (Tex. Crim.

2006“Grave doubt” means that “in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” Thus, “in cases of grave doubt as to harmlessness the petitioner must win.” Id. at 637-38 (quoting United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 449 (1986) and O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 433-36 (1995)) (footnotes omitted).

2006“Grave doubt” means that “in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” Thus, “in cases of grave doubt as to harmlessness the petitioner must win.” Id . at 637-38 (quoting United States v. Lane , 474 U.S. 438, 449 (1986) and O’Neal v. McAninch , 513 U.S. 432, 433-36 (1995)) (footnotes omitted).

2021If the reviewing court has “grave doubt” about whether the error had “substantial influence” on the outcome of the proceeding, then it “must treat the error as if it did.” Id. at 655 . “‘Grave doubt’ occurs when the matter is so evenly balanced that the reviewing court believes the record is ‘in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.’” Id. at 655–56 (quoting Burnett, 88 S.W.3d at 637–38). –6– In reviewing the record, the “critical question” is whether there is “a fair assurance that the defendant’s decision to plead guilty would not have changed had the court admonished him.” V

2021If the reviewing court has “grave doubt” about whether the error had “substantial influence” on the outcome of the proceeding, then it “must treat the error as if it did.” Id. at 655 . “‘Grave doubt’ occurs when the matter is so evenly balanced that the reviewing court believes the record is ‘in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.’” Id. at 655–56 (quoting Burnett, 88 S.W.3d at 637–38). –6– In reviewing the record, the “critical question” is whether there is “a fair assurance that the defendant’s decision to plead guilty would not have changed had the court admonished him.” V

2015An 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.” Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862, 867 (Tex. Crim.

2011Id. (citing Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862, 867 (Tex. Crim.

2009The Supreme Court has defined “grave doubt” to “mean that, in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.”101 If the reviewing court is unsure whether the error affected the outcome, the court should treat the error as harmful, that is, as having a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.102 Due to the five aforementioned concerns and the reasoning expressed therein, we 100 Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 88 (1963). 101 O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 434 (1995). 1

1996See Arnold v. State, 786 S.W.2d 295, 298 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (Rule 81(b)(2) is identical to federal harmless error rule which places the burden on beneficiary of error to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that error was harmless); See also Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85 , 84 S.Ct. 229 , 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963) and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Williams v. State, 851 S.W.2d 282, 285 (Tex.Crim.App.1993); also see and compare Mayes v. State, 816 S.W.2d 79, 88 (Tex.Crim.App.1991)(The State has no "burden of proof” or “burden of persuasion" in the sense th

2015App. 2011) (quoting Schutz v. State, 63 S.W.3d 442, 444 (Tex. Crim.

2003In conducting a proper “harm” analysis in the instant case, the most difficult steps will be to fully describe the “nature of the evidence supporting the verdict” as we carefully examine the entire record, and to fully explain the “character of the error and its relationship to other evidence.” Schutz, 63 S.W.3d at 444-45 .

2009Id. 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946) The Supreme Court has defined “grave doubt” to “mean that, in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” 101 If the reviewing court is unsure whether the error affected the outcome, the court should treat the error as harmful, that is, as having a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict. 102 *179 Due to the five aforementioned concerns and the reasoning expressed therein, we have a “grave doubt” that the ju

2009Id. 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946) The Supreme Court has defined “grave doubt” to “mean that, in the judge’s mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” 101 If the reviewing court is unsure whether the error affected the outcome, the court should treat the error as harmful, that is, as having a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict. 102 *179 Due to the five aforementioned concerns and the reasoning expressed therein, we have a “grave doubt” that the ju

1996Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568, 587-88 (Tex.Crim.App.1989).

1994Since the determination of the harmlessness of an error is a fact-specific inquiry, see Harris, 790 S.W.2d at 586 , we note that the error in this case could be considered harmful in other contexts.

2022“Grave doubt” means that, “in the judge’s mind, the 10 question is so evenly balanced that he feels that he is in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error.” Baiza v. State, 487 S.W.3d 338, 346 (Tex. App.— Eastland 2016, pet. ref’d) (citing Barshaw, 342 S.W.3d at 94 ).

2019Grado v. State, 445 S.W.3d 736, 741 (Tex. Crim.

2015See also Robertson v. Cain, 324 F.3d 297 (5th Cir. 2003) at 305 (...the Petitioner should prevail whenever, the record is so evenly balanced that a conscientious judge is in grave doubt as to the harmlessness of the error.

2004Davis v. State, 104 S.W.Sd 177, 182-83 (Tex.App.-Waco 2003, no pet.) (quoting Fowler v. State, 958 S.W.2d 853, 865 (Tex.App.-Waco 1997) (citations omitted), aff'd, 991 S.W.2d 258 (Tex.Crim.App.1999)). 3 Powell’s girlfriend Tiffany testified that they had been in Dallas that day and returned to Waco that evening.

2004Davis v. State, 104 S.W.3d 177, 182-83 (Tex.App.-Waco 2003, no pet.) (quoting Fowler v. State, 958 S.W.2d 853, 865 (Tex.App.-Waco 1997) (citations omitted), aff'd, 991 S.W.2d 258 (Tex.Crim.App.1999)). [3] Powell's girlfriend Tiffany testified that they had been in Dallas that day and returned to Waco that evening.

2004Davis v. State, 104 S.W.3d 177, 182-83 (Tex.App.-Waco 2003, no pet.) (quoting Fowler v. State, 958 S.W.2d 853, 865 (Tex.App.-Waco 1997) (citations omitted), aff'd, 991 S.W.2d 258 (Tex.Crim.App.1999)). [3] Powell's girlfriend Tiffany testified that they had been in Dallas that day and returned to Waco that evening.

2003If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand. 328 U.S. at 765 , 66 S.Ct. at 1248 (emphasis added); see Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 355-58 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Johnson v. State, 43 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). *538 The Supreme Court has defined "grave doubt" to mean "in the judge's mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error." O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 435 , 115 S.Ct. 992, 994 , 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995); Webb v. State, 36 S.W.3d 164, 182-83 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet.

2003If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand. 328 U.S. at 765 , 66 S.Ct. at 1248 (emphasis added); see Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 355-58 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Johnson v. State, 43 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). *538 The Supreme Court has defined "grave doubt" to mean "in the judge's mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error." O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 435 , 115 S.Ct. 992, 994 , 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995); Webb v. State, 36 S.W.3d 164, 182-83 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet.

2002Barnard, Printers' Ink, Mar. 10, 1927, at 114 (Source: The Home Book of Proverbs, Maxims and Familiar Phrases, Burton Stevenson, ed., 1948) [5] For an example of how one photograph can have an influential effect see Langford v. Blackman, 790 S.W.2d 127, 132 (Tex.App.-Beaumont), rev'd, 795 S.W.2d 742 (Tex.1990)(emphasis added). [6] "Of importance; authoritative; weighty; sedate; serious." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 992 (3d ed.1981). [7] "By `grave doubt' we mean that, in the judge's mind the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harm