complained-of jury instruction in Texas

2008Relying on In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), Aguilar also contends in his first issue that the complained-of jury instruction relieved the State of proving an element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, thus violating his due process rights, and therefore the case should be reversed and remanded without a harm analysis.

2008Relying on In re Winship , 397 U.S. 358 (1970), Aguilar also contends in his first issue that the complained-of jury instruction relieved the State of proving an element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, thus violating his due process rights, and therefore the case should be reversed and remanded without a harm analysis.

2005The concerns that I expressed in my dissent to Gray, 152 S.W.3d at 135-40 , do not exist here.

2005The concerns that I expressed in my dissent to Gray, 152 S.W.3d at 135-40 , do not exist here.

2017However, in the prosecution for burglary, to warrant such an inference or presumption of guilt from the circumstances of possession alone, such possession must be personal, must be recent, must be unexplained, and must involve a distinct and conscious assertion of right to the property by a defendant.” Id. at 577-78 .

2003We simply hold that it was erroneous to consolidate these matters as a definition of ‘normal use’ under the circumstances presented.” Id. at 666 n. 8. *546 The court then conducted an Almanza 2 harm analysis and determined that the error was not harmless because of the emphasis placed on the erroneous definition by the prosecutor in closing argument.

2001We simply hold that it was erroneous to consolidate these matters as a definition of “normal use” under the circumstances presented. 13 In Anderson v. State, 774 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. App. SHouston [14th Dist. ] 1989, no pet.), the jury charge in an involuntary manslaughter prosecution included a paraphrase of both the old and new statutory definitions of “intoxicated.” It was held to constitute an erroneous statement of the law.