inclusion instruction in Texas

1997Under the standard set out in Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1984), we find that the inclusion of the instruction in the absence of a pleading did not cause K.W.G. egregious harm.

1997Under the standard set out in Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1984), we find that the inclusion of the instruction in the absence of a pleading did not cause K.W.G. egregious harm.

2019If guilt as a party would be “an irrational finding under the evidence, then it is highly unlikely that a rational jury would base its verdict on a parties theory.” Cathey v. State, 992 S.W.2d 460, 466 (Tex. Crim.

2019See Cathey, 992 S.W.2d at 466 .

2026Id. at 754–55.

2023The Court of Criminal Appeals thus held that the inclusion of the limiting instruction was not reversible error.4 Id. 4 The opinion does not include a harm analysis, thus indicating that the inclusion of the instruction was not error. 11 Citing to Fair, this Court and others consistently have held that inclusion of a limiting instruction for evidence of extraneous bad acts and offenses in a jury charge, over a defendant’s objection, is not reversible error.

2021See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 192 (Tex. 2001) (“We no longer believe that a Mother Hubbard clause in an order or in a judgment issued without a full trial can be taken to indicate finality”). 2 A petition for modification is a new case or new cause of action under the family code.

2018See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 203-04 . 7 entitled to a judgment against a defendant who has not been served with citation, appeared, or waived service of citation.

2015The aforesaid legal counsel has read and explained to each of us the entire contents of this Release in Full, as well as the legal consequences of this Release .... (emphasis added) Because courts are to assume that the parties intended every contractual provision to have some meaning, see Columbia Gas, 940 S.W.2d at 591 ; Lenape Resources Corp. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 925 S.W.2d 565, 574 (Tex.1996), we must presume that the parties contemplated, by the inclusion of this clause, that the Swansons would not rely on any representations of Schlumberger about the commercial feasibility and

2000Because courts are to assume that the parties intended every contractual provision to have some meaning, see Columbia Gas, 940 S.W.2d at 591; Lenape Resources Corp. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 925 S.W.2d 565, 574 (Tex.1996), we must presume that the parties contemplated, by the inclusion of this clause, that the Swansons would not rely on any representations of Schlumberger about the commercial feasibility and value of this project, which, after all, was the very dispute that the release was supposed to resolve.

2009See id.

2009See id.

2004See In Re K.W.G., 953 S.W.2d 483, 488 (Tex.App.–Texarkana 1997, pet. denied).

2001See In Re K.W.G., 953 S.W.2d 483, 488 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1997, pet. denied).

2001Thus, the inclusion of this defense “would be superfluous, and in fact, would be an impermissible comment on the weight of the evidence.” Id. (discussing Giesberg v. State, 984 S.W.2d 245, 248-51 (Tex.Crim.App.1998)).

2001Thus, the inclusion of this defense "would be superfluous, and in fact, would be an impermissible comment on the weight of the evidence." Id . (discussing Giesberg v. State , 984 S.W.2d 245, 248-51 (Tex. Crim.

2024In essence, we conclude that this case is like Castillo, in which the jury could, and probably did, “simply ignore a factor in the charge that lacks evidentiary support,” and not like Romero, where the jury was “as misled by the inclusion of a claim without evidentiary support as by a legally erroneous instruction.” Romero, 166 S.W.3d at 227 .

2024In essence, we conclude that this case is like Castillo, in which the jury could, and probably did, “simply ignore a factor in the charge that lacks evidentiary support,” and not like Romero, where the jury was “as misled by the inclusion of a claim without evidentiary support as by a legally erroneous instruction.” Romero, 166 S.W.3d at 227 .

2024Appellant maintains on appeal that the State presented “zero evidence” that Appellant and Jennings had any common understanding or design. 11 Appellant does not specifically assert that the trial court’s error caused him some harm but asserts that the State’s request for a law-of-parties instruction was “an attempt to gain a conviction without sufficient proof.” Generally, the trial court may instruct the jury on the law of parties if “there is sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict that the defendant is criminally responsible under the law of parties.” Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547, 564

2021App. 1999) (“[B]ecause there was no evidence tending to show appellant’s guilt as a party, the jury almost certainly did not rely upon the parties instruction in arriving at its verdict, but rather based the verdict on the evidence tending to show appellant’s guilt as a principal actor.”); see also Walter v. State, 588 S.W.3d 682 , 688 (Tex. App.—Eastland Gaona v. State Page 17 2019, pet. ref’d) (“An appellant is not harmed by the inclusion of an instruction on the law of parties if the jury ‘almost certainly did not rely upon the parties instruction in arriving at its verdict, but rather base

2022“A jury charge on causation is called for only when the issue of concurrent causation is presented.” Hughes v. State, 897 S.W.2d 285, 297 (Tex. Crim.

2021See Hughes v. State, 897 S.W.2d 285, 301 (Tex. Crim.

2011Jordan, 222 S.W.3d at 848 ; DeLeon, 933 S.W.2d at 294 (“The inclusion of an instruction on [sudden] emergency does not constitute error, . . . when the evidence conflicts as to whether the defendant’s actions prior to the ‘emergency’ . . . were suspect.”).

2011Jordan , 222 S.W.3d at 848 ; DeLeon , 933 S.W.2d at 294 (“The inclusion of an instruction on [sudden] emergency does not constitute error, . . . when the evidence conflicts as to whether the defendant’s actions prior to the ‘emergency’ . . . were suspect.”).

2010See Torres, 116 S.W.3d at 212 ; see also Bates v. State, 164 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2005, no pet.); O’Canas v. State, 140 S.W.3d 695, 701-02 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2003, pet. ref’d); Ochoa v. State, 119 S.W.3d 825, 829 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2003, no pet.); Fluellen v. State, 104 S.W.3d 152, 163-64 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2003, no pet.); Minor v. State, 91 S.W.3d 824, 828-29 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref’d); Carriere v. State, 84 S.W.3d 753 , 759 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d) (cases finding no error in the inclusion of the instruction in the jury charge); but see R

2010See Torres , 116 S.W.3d at 212 ; see also Bates v. State , 164 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.); O'Canas v. State , 140 S.W.3d 695, 701-02 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, pet. ref'd); Ochoa v. State , 119 S.W.3d 825, 829 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.) ; Fluellen v. State , 104 S.W.3d 152, 163-64 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2003, no pet.); Minor v. State , 91 S.W.3d 824, 828-29 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref'd); Carriere v. State , 84 S.W.3d 753 , 759 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd) (cases finding no error in the inclusion of the instruction in the jury charge); b

2010See Torres, 116 S.W.3d at 212 ; see also Bates v. State, 164 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2005, no pet.); O’Canas v. State, 140 S.W.3d 695, 701-02 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2003, pet. ref’d); Ochoa v. State, 119 S.W.3d 825, 829 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2003, no pet.); Fluellen v. State, 104 S.W.3d 152, 163-64 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2003, no pet.); Minor v. State, 91 S.W.3d 824, 828-29 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref’d); Carriere v. State, 84 S.W.3d 753 , 759 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d) (cases finding no error in the inclusion of the instruction in the jury charge); but see R

2010See Torres , 116 S.W.3d at 212 ; see also Bates v. State , 164 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.); O'Canas v. State , 140 S.W.3d 695, 701-02 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, pet. ref'd); Ochoa v. State , 119 S.W.3d 825, 829 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.) ; Fluellen v. State , 104 S.W.3d 152, 163-64 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2003, no pet.); Minor v. State , 91 S.W.3d 824, 828-29 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref'd); Carriere v. State , 84 S.W.3d 753 , 759 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd) (cases finding no error in the inclusion of the instruction in the jury charge); b

2010See Torres, 116 S.W.3d at 212 ; see also Bates v. State, 164 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2005, no pet.); O’Canas v. State, 140 S.W.3d 695, 701-02 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2003, pet. ref’d); Ochoa v. State, 119 S.W.3d 825, 829 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2003, no pet.); Fluellen v. State, 104 S.W.3d 152, 163-64 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2003, no pet.); Minor v. State, 91 S.W.3d 824, 828-29 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref’d); Carriere v. State, 84 S.W.3d 753 , 759 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d) (cases finding no error in the inclusion of the instruction in the jury charge); but see R

2010See Torres , 116 S.W.3d at 212 ; see also Bates v. State , 164 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.); O'Canas v. State , 140 S.W.3d 695, 701-02 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, pet. ref'd); Ochoa v. State , 119 S.W.3d 825, 829 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.) ; Fluellen v. State , 104 S.W.3d 152, 163-64 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2003, no pet.); Minor v. State , 91 S.W.3d 824, 828-29 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref'd); Carriere v. State , 84 S.W.3d 753 , 759 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd) (cases finding no error in the inclusion of the instruction in the jury charge); b

2010See Torres, 116 S.W.3d at 212 ; see also Bates v. State, 164 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2005, no pet.); O’Canas v. State, 140 S.W.3d 695, 701-02 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2003, pet. ref’d); Ochoa v. State, 119 S.W.3d 825, 829 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2003, no pet.); Fluellen v. State, 104 S.W.3d 152, 163-64 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2003, no pet.); Minor v. State, 91 S.W.3d 824, 828-29 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref’d); Carriere v. State, 84 S.W.3d 753 , 759 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d) (cases finding no error in the inclusion of the instruction in the jury charge); but see R

2010See Torres , 116 S.W.3d at 212 ; see also Bates v. State , 164 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.); O'Canas v. State , 140 S.W.3d 695, 701-02 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, pet. ref'd); Ochoa v. State , 119 S.W.3d 825, 829 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.) ; Fluellen v. State , 104 S.W.3d 152, 163-64 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2003, no pet.); Minor v. State , 91 S.W.3d 824, 828-29 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref'd); Carriere v. State , 84 S.W.3d 753 , 759 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd) (cases finding no error in the inclusion of the instruction in the jury charge); b

2010See Torres, 116 S.W.3d at 212 ; see also Bates v. State, 164 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2005, no pet.); O’Canas v. State, 140 S.W.3d 695, 701-02 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2003, pet. ref’d); Ochoa v. State, 119 S.W.3d 825, 829 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2003, no pet.); Fluellen v. State, 104 S.W.3d 152, 163-64 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2003, no pet.); Minor v. State, 91 S.W.3d 824, 828-29 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref’d); Carriere v. State, 84 S.W.3d 753 , 759 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d) (cases finding no error in the inclusion of the instruction in the jury charge); but see R

2010See Torres , 116 S.W.3d at 212 ; see also Bates v. State , 164 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.); O'Canas v. State , 140 S.W.3d 695, 701-02 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, pet. ref'd); Ochoa v. State , 119 S.W.3d 825, 829 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.) ; Fluellen v. State , 104 S.W.3d 152, 163-64 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2003, no pet.); Minor v. State , 91 S.W.3d 824, 828-29 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref'd); Carriere v. State , 84 S.W.3d 753 , 759 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd) (cases finding no error in the inclusion of the instruction in the jury charge); b

2010See Torres, 116 S.W.3d at 212 ; see also Bates v. State, 164 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2005, no pet.); O’Canas v. State, 140 S.W.3d 695, 701-02 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2003, pet. ref’d); Ochoa v. State, 119 S.W.3d 825, 829 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2003, no pet.); Fluellen v. State, 104 S.W.3d 152, 163-64 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2003, no pet.); Minor v. State, 91 S.W.3d 824, 828-29 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref’d); Carriere v. State, 84 S.W.3d 753 , 759 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d) (cases finding no error in the inclusion of the instruction in the jury charge); but see R

2010See Torres , 116 S.W.3d at 212 ; see also Bates v. State , 164 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.); O'Canas v. State , 140 S.W.3d 695, 701-02 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, pet. ref'd); Ochoa v. State , 119 S.W.3d 825, 829 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.) ; Fluellen v. State , 104 S.W.3d 152, 163-64 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2003, no pet.); Minor v. State , 91 S.W.3d 824, 828-29 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref'd); Carriere v. State , 84 S.W.3d 753 , 759 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd) (cases finding no error in the inclusion of the instruction in the jury charge); b

2010See Torres, 116 S.W.3d at 212 ; see also Bates v. State, 164 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2005, no pet.); O’Canas v. State, 140 S.W.3d 695, 701-02 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2003, pet. ref’d); Ochoa v. State, 119 S.W.3d 825, 829 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2003, no pet.); Fluellen v. State, 104 S.W.3d 152, 163-64 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2003, no pet.); Minor v. State, 91 S.W.3d 824, 828-29 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref’d); Carriere v. State, 84 S.W.3d 753 , 759 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d) (cases finding no error in the inclusion of the instruction in the jury charge); but see R

2010See Torres , 116 S.W.3d at 212 ; see also Bates v. State , 164 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.); O'Canas v. State , 140 S.W.3d 695, 701-02 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, pet. ref'd); Ochoa v. State , 119 S.W.3d 825, 829 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.) ; Fluellen v. State , 104 S.W.3d 152, 163-64 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2003, no pet.); Minor v. State , 91 S.W.3d 824, 828-29 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref'd); Carriere v. State , 84 S.W.3d 753 , 759 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd) (cases finding no error in the inclusion of the instruction in the jury charge); b

2010On appeal, this Court held that the district court abused its discretion in striking Zeecon's amended answer because the record conclusively showed that McEwen was "aware of the defense from the outset of the case, admit[ted] that she was aware of it, and was not surprised by the inclusion of the defense in the amended answer filed seven days before trial." Zeecon Wireless Internet, LLC v. McEwen , 212 S.W.3d 764, 767 (Tex. App.--Austin 2006, no pet.).

2010On appeal, this Court held that the district court abused its discretion in striking Zeecon’s amended answer because the record conclusively showed that McEwen was “aware of the defense from the outset of the case, admit[ted] that she was aware of it, and was not surprised by the inclusion of the defense in the amended answer filed seven days before trial.” Zeecon Wireless Internet, LLC v. McEwen, 212 S.W.3d 764, 767 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, no pet.).

2014See State Department of Highways and Public Transportation v. Payne, 838 S.W.2d 235, 239 (Tex. 1992).

2011Rather, Payne held that “[tjhere should be but one test for determining if a party has preserved error in the jury charge, and that is whether the party made the trial court aware of the complaint, timely arid plainly, and obtained a ruling.” Payne, 838 S.W.2d at 241 .

2020Further, when rejecting arguments that a nearly identically worded voluntary-intoxication instruction relieved the State of the obligation of proving all elements beyond a reasonable doubt and approving the inclusion of that instruction, the Court of Criminal Appeals explained that, “[i]f anything, a voluntary-intoxication instruction acts to reaffirm the mental-state requirements, not delete them,” by informing “the jury that the elements of the offense, including the requisite mental state, are not affected by any evidence of intoxication.” Id.

2015The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed in light of its finding that the evidence supported the inclusion of the instruction, and noted that it disagreed with the court of appeals’ harm analysis regarding the effect of the instruction. 287 S.W.3d at 28 .

2015Ctr.-Linden v. Twilley, 422 S.W.3d 782, 785 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2013, pet. denied) (citing Williams, 371 S.W.3d at 179 ).

2013Two primary holdings of Williams are pertinent to our decision here: (1) the lack of a health care relationship between the claimant and the health care provider is not a barrier to the inclusion of a claim within the Legislature’s definition of health care liability claims, and (2) “the safety component of HCLCs need not be directly related to the provision of health care.... ” Id. at 179, 186 .

2002Id. at 573 .

2002Id. at 573.

2026Delivered: April 2, 2026 Publish 47 See Id. at 820 .

2023See Reeves v. State, 420 S.W.3d 812, 816 (Tex. Crim.

2014See Taylor, 885 S.W.2d at 158 .

2012Dana asserts that Taylor v. State, 885 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), the ease on which the State relied in arguing for the inclusion of the instruction, is factually distinguishable.