harmful error in Texas

2006Appellant argues that this was harmful error in his case because the jury charge “enabled the jury to possibly return a non-unanimous guilty verdict.” Under the Almanza egregious harm standard, the record must show that a defendant has suffered actual, rather than merely theoretical, harm from jury instruction error. 686 S.W.2d at 174 .

2006Appellant argues that this was harmful error in his case because the jury charge “enabled the jury to possibly return a non-unanimous guilty verdict.” Under the Almanza egregious harm standard, the record must show that a defendant has suffered actual, rather than merely theoretical, harm from jury instruction error. 686 S.W.2d at 174 .

1992Bird v. State, 692 S.W.2d 65, 70 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), cer t. denied, 475 U.S. 1031 , 106 5.Ct. 1238, 89 L.Ed.2d 346 (1986); Dumas v. State, 812 S.W.2d 611, 615 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d).

1991Bird v. State, 692 S.W.2d 65, 70 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1031 , 106 S.Ct. 1238 , 89 L.Ed.2d 346 (1986).

2013Tijerina v. State, 334 S.W.3d 825, 835 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2011, pet. ref'd).

2012Tijerina v. State, 334 S.W.3d 825, 835 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2011, pet. ref'd).

2008Cf. Miles v. State , 918 S.W.2d 511, 517 (Tex. Crim.

2008Cf. Miles v. State, 918 S.W.2d 511, 517 (Tex. Crim.

2006See id. at 810 B 11.

2006See id. at 810-11 .

2005See Gardner v. Baker & Botts, L.L.P. , 6 S.W.3d 295, 297 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (holding that statement of issues requires appellant to “designate with reasonable particularity the complaints to be pursued on appeal”). [3] In B.L.D. , Justice Wainwright describes the limited application of the fundamental-error doctrine to “certain juvenile delinquency cases,” see 113 S.W.3d at 350–51, while Justice Hankinson, in her dissent in J.F.C. , describes the applicability of the fundamental-error doctrine more broadly, to cases involving “the state’s interest in the rights a

2005See Gardner v. Baker & Botts, L.L.P., 6 S.W.3d 295, 297 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (holding that statement of issues *805 requires appellant to "designate with reasonable particularity the complaints to be pursued on appeal”). 3 .

2001We hold that the assignment is void because it constituted a Mary Carter agreement, banned by Elbaor v. Smith , 845 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 1992), and violated the joint tortfeasor exception to the general rule of free assignability of causes of action, contravening International Proteins, Inc. v. Ralston-Purina Co. , 744 S.W.2d 932, 934 (Tex. 1988).

2001We hold that the assignment is void because it constituted a Mary Carter agreement, banned by Elbaor v. Smith, 845 S.W.2d 240 (Tex.1992), and violated the joint tortfeasor exception to the general rule of free assignability of causes of action, contravening International Proteins, Corp. v. Ralston-Purina Co., 744 S.W.2d 932, 934 (Tex.1988).

1992See Harris, 790 S.W.2d at 587 (“the court must also determine whether declaring the error harmless would encourage the State to repeat it with impunity.”); See also Tex. Const. ÁRT.

1992See Harris, 790 S.W.2d at 587 ("the court must also determine whether declaring the error harmless would encourage the State to repeat it with impunity."); See also Tex. Const. Art.

2025See Barfield, 63 S.W.3d at 450 (noting that “[a]lthough a bifurcated trial without a jury is not authorized, it is not necessarily a harmful error”); Frame, 615 S.W.2d at 768 n.1 (affirming but noting that “[a]lthough erroneous, bifurcating a guilty plea trial does not constitute reversible error under” prior precedent); Ricondo, 634 S.W.2d at 842 (“The fact, however, that the proceeding was not so converted [from bifurcated to unitary on the defendant’s change of a previously entered plea of not guilty, made upon his refusal to plea, to guilty] was irregular but does not in and of itself call

2010The Court noted that “[although a bifurcated trial without a jury is not authorized, it is not necessarily a harmful error.” Id. “[T]he unauthorized ‘bifurcation’ of a trial without a jury does not mean that a genuinely separate punishment phase exists.” Id.

2024App. 1999); see also Martinez, 225 S.W.3d at 555 (“[t]o remedy the trial court’s harmful error, we must strike one of the two convictions”).

2007To remedy the district court’s harmful error, we must strike one of the two convictions under Count I of the indictment and two of the three convictions under Count III of the indictment. 1 See Martinez, 225 S.W.3d at 555-556 .

2021A. Applicable Law “We review a trial court’s decision to submit or refuse a particular instruction under an abuse of discretion standard of review.” Thota v. Young, 366 S.W.3d 678, 687 (Tex. 2012) (citing In re V.L.K., 24 S.W.3d 338, 341 (Tex. 2000)).

2013Under the harmful error rule, an “appellate court will not reverse a judgment for charge error unless that error was harmful because it ‘probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment’ or ‘probably prevented the petitioner from properly presenting the case to the appellate courts.’” Thota, 366 S.W.3d at 687 (quoting TEX.

2016App. P. 44.1(a); see McCraw v. Maris, 828 S.W.2d 756, 757 (Tex. 1992).

2001In McCraw , the Court held that harmful error may result from the erroneous exclusion of evidence. 828 S.W.2d at 758 .

2026See id.

2026Nissan Motor, 145 S.W.3d at 139 ; see also Kia Motors Corp. v. Ruiz, 432 S.W.3d 865 , 881– 84 (Tex. 2014) (holding that the trial court committed harmful error when it improperly admitted dissimilar warranty claims).

2025See Barfield, 63 S.W.3d at 450 (noting that “[a]lthough a bifurcated trial without a jury is not authorized, it is not necessarily a harmful error”); Frame, 615 S.W.2d at 768 n.1 (affirming but noting that “[a]lthough erroneous, bifurcating a guilty plea trial does not constitute reversible error under” prior precedent); Ricondo, 634 S.W.2d at 842 (“The fact, however, that the proceeding was not so converted [from bifurcated to unitary on the defendant’s change of a previously entered plea of not guilty, made upon his refusal to plea, to guilty] was irregular but does not in and of itself call