Almanza standard in Texas

2026CUEVAS — 15 charge because it [was] undisputed that he was engaged in criminal activity—namely, a drug deal—when he shot Ose.”9 The court of appeals then weighed the Almanza factors: the entire jury charge, the arguments of counsel, the state of the evidence, and any other relevant information revealed by the record.10 The court of appeals held that the first factor weighed against a finding of harm because the abstract portion of the jury charge correctly stated the law on the presumption,11 the application portion of the charge did not refer to it at all, and the application section is what

2026CUEVAS — 15 charge because it [was] undisputed that he was engaged in criminal activity—namely, a drug deal—when he shot Ose.”9 The court of appeals then weighed the Almanza factors: the entire jury charge, the arguments of counsel, the state of the evidence, and any other relevant information revealed by the record.10 The court of appeals held that the first factor weighed against a finding of harm because the abstract portion of the jury charge correctly stated the law on the presumption,11 the application portion of the charge did not refer to it at all, and the application section is what

2024Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Under the Almanza standard, the record must show that a defendant has suffered actual, rather than merely theoretical, harm from jury instruction error.”).

2024Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738, 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Under the Almanza standard, the record must show that a defendant has suffered actual, rather than merely theoretical, harm from jury instruction error.”).

2026See Wade, 594 S.W.3d at 817; see also Gelinas v. State, 398 S.W.3d 703, 709 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (plurality op.) (emphasizing “that jury arguments bear significantly on an Almanza analysis”). 27 State of the Evidence Turning to the third factor, we note that there was no dispute that Brown shot Rodriguez and that the disputed issue was whether Brown’s actions were justified.

2026See Wade, 594 S.W.3d at 817; see also Gelinas v. State, 398 S.W.3d 703, 709 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (plurality op.) (emphasizing “that jury arguments bear significantly on an Almanza analysis”). 27 State of the Evidence Turning to the third factor, we note that there was no dispute that Brown shot Rodriguez and that the disputed issue was whether Brown’s actions were justified.

2014But see Doughtery v. State, 188 S.W.3d 670 , 670-71 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (Keller, P. J., dissenting) (concluding erroneous abstract paragraph remedied by proper application paragraph without necessity of considering all Almanza factors).

2014See, e.g., Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633, 640 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Kuhn v. State, 393 S.W.3d 519 , 529-30 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. ref’d); but see Dougherty v. State, No. PD–1411-05, 2006 WL 475802 at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. March 1, 2006) (not designated for publication) (holding that, although appellate court correctly set forth the standard of review for assessing harm, a harm analysis based on charge error could not be based only on the jury charge, and must include consideration of all four Almanza factors). 10 In addition, as mentioned, the alternative culpable mental state of intenti

2026Marshall v. State, 479 S.W.3d 840, 843 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (citing Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348 , 351-52 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)). 10 Castillo does not address the Almanza factors in his brief.3 1.

2026Marshall v. State, 479 S.W.3d 840, 843 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (citing Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348 , 351-52 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)). 10 Castillo does not address the Almanza factors in his brief.3 1.

2025The court acknowledged that this holding might conflict with the Almanza framework for 18 review of jury charge error, but it construed Almanza as applying to “omissions of issues upon which a trial court has a duty to instruct without a request from either party or issues that have been timely brought to the trial court’s attention.” Id. at 63– 64.

2025The court acknowledged that this holding might conflict with the Almanza framework for 18 review of jury charge error, but it construed Almanza as applying to “omissions of issues upon which a trial court has a duty to instruct without a request from either party or issues that have been timely brought to the trial court’s attention.” Id. at 63– 64.

2024McFadden testified that the offense occurred on March 29, which was corroborated by Hall, Chaffin, and 3 In Casanova v. State, the court stated, [T]he reviewing court must take the entire record into account, as in any Almanza analysis, to assess whether the jury, had it been properly instructed on the law requiring corroboration of accomplice-witness testimony, “would have found the corroborating evidence so unconvincing in fact as to render the State’s overall case for conviction clearly and significantly less persuasive.” Casanova v. State, 383 S.W.3d 530, 534 (Tex. Crim.

2024In Casanova v. State, the court stated, [T]he reviewing court must take the entire record into account, as in any Almanza analysis,[10] to assess whether the jury, had it been properly instructed on the law requiring corroboration of accomplice-witness testimony, “would have found the corroborating evidence so unconvincing in fact as to render the State’s overall case for conviction clearly and significantly less persuasive.” Casanova v. State, 383 S.W.3d 530, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (footnote omitted) (quoting Saunders, 817 S.W.2d at 692 ) (citing Herron, 86 S.W.3d at 632 ).

2015See Vega, 394 S.W.3d at 521-22 (finding no harm in the trial court’s failure to apply entrapment to a second individual under the Almanza factors).

2015See Vega, 394 S.W.3d at 521-22 (finding no harm in the trial court’s failure to apply entrapment to a second individual under the Almanza factors).

2026Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 750 ; see Cornet v. State, 417 S.W.3d 446, 449 (Tex. Crim.

2026Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 750 ; see Cornet v. State, 417 S.W.3d 446, 449 (Tex. Crim.

2025App. 1989) (first applying Almanza analysis for determining harm in jury verdict form); Olivas v. State, 202 S.W.3d 137 , 144–45 (Tex. Crim.

2015App. 2013) (noting that the Almanza analysis “is a fact specific one which should be done on a case-by-case basis”); Olivas, 202 S.W.3d at 144 ; Medina, 7 S.W.3d at 640 ; Plata, 926 S.W.2d at 302-03 ; see also McCarty v. State, No. 10-13-00066-CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 12407 , at *7 (Tex. App.—Waco Oct. 3, 2013, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (declining to find that appellant was egregiously harmed because “the application paragraph of the charge served to limit the culpable mental states to their relevant conduct elements”). 2.

2023See Cormier v. State, 955 S.W.2d 161, 164 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no pet.) (explaining that “failure to give this mandatory instruction is charge error subject to Almanza analysis”); Sanders v. State, 448 S.W.3d 546, 548 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, no pet.) (noting that courts have routinely concluded that language from Article 37.07 is mandatory and that trial courts are not authorized to alter instruction from precise statutory language).

2021See Cormier v. State, 955 S.W.2d 161, 164 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no pet.) (explaining that failure to give mandatory statutory jury charge “is charge error subject to Almanza analysis”); see also Igo v. State, 210 S.W.3d 645, 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (applying egregious-harm analysis from Almanza to jury-charge error issue involving another portion of article 37.07 and explaining that appellate review of jury-charge errors is governed by Almanza).

2000See also Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57, 62-63 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (trial judge has no duty to sua sponte give charge on defensive issue; if defendant does not request one, and does not object to its omission, there is no error and Almanza test is not applied); Mann v. State, 964 S.W.2d 639, 641 (Tex.Crim.App.1998 ) (no fundamental error exists where charge properly instructs jury as to State’s burden of proof except for one small portion; Almanza test is applied to any error therein); State v. Toney, 979 S.W.2d 642, 644-45 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (total failure to give instruction as to reasonable

2000See also Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57, 62-63 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (trial judge has no duty to sua sponte give charge on defensive issue; if defendant does not request one, and does not object to its omission, there is no error and Almanza test is not applied); Mann v. State, 964 S.W.2d 639, 641 (Tex.Crim.App.1998 ) (no fundamental error exists where charge properly instructs jury as to State’s burden of proof except for one small portion; Almanza test is applied to any error therein); State v. Toney, 979 S.W.2d 642, 644-45 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (total failure to give instruction as to reasonable

2011The majority opinion begins by discussing the Almanza standard of harm, noting that “errors which result in egregious harm are those that affect ‘the very basis of the case,’ deprive the defendant of a ‘valuable right,’ or ‘vitally affect a defensive theory.’” Hutch , 922 S.W.2d at 171 , citing Almanza v. State , 686 S.W.2d 157, 172 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985).

2011The majority opinion begins by discussing the Almanza standard of harm, noting that “errors which result in egregious harm are those that affect ‘the very basis of the case,’ deprive the defendant of a ‘valuable right,’ or ‘vitally affect a defensive theory.’” Hutch , 922 S.W.2d at 171 , citing Almanza v. State , 686 S.W.2d 157, 172 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985).

2026The Charge as a Whole The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that, “[w]here the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.” Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633, 640 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); see also Kuhn v. State, 393 S.W.3d 519, 529 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. ref’d) (“Texas courts have repeatedly held that where the application paragraph of the charge correctly instructs the jury on the law applicable to the case, this mitigates against a finding that any error in the abstract portion of the charge was egregious.”). 2 We note that, wh

2026The Charge as a Whole The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that, “[w]here the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.” Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633, 640 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); see also Kuhn v. State, 393 S.W.3d 519, 529 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. ref’d) (“Texas courts have repeatedly held that where the application paragraph of the charge correctly instructs the jury on the law applicable to the case, this mitigates against a finding that any error in the abstract portion of the charge was egregious.”). 2 We note that, wh

2015App. 1984) (op. on reh’g). 25 Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726 , 731 (Tex. Crim.

2015App. 1984) (op. on reh’g). 25 Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726 , 731 (Tex. Crim.

2024Id. at 779, 782; see also Williams, 662 S.W.3d at 461 (“when the complained- of error is the lack of a defensive instruction, the Almanza framework does not apply.”).

2024Id. at 779, 782; see also Williams, 662 S.W.3d at 461 (“when the complained- of error is the lack of a defensive instruction, the Almanza framework does not apply.”).

2015Truong, with intent to deprive the Under the Almanza standard, the record must show cardholder of the property and that a defendant has suffered actual, rather than merely without the effective consent of the theoretical, harm from jury instruction error. 45 Errors cardholder; or that result in egregious harm are those that affect "the If you unanimously find from very basis of the case," "deprive the defendant of a the evidence beyond a reasonable valuable right," or "vitally affect a defensive theory." 46 doubt that [appellant] on or about Appellant argues that he suffered actual harm from t

2015Truong, with intent to deprive the Under the Almanza standard, the record must show cardholder of the property and that a defendant has suffered actual, rather than merely without the effective consent of the theoretical, harm from jury instruction error. 45 Errors cardholder; or that result in egregious harm are those that affect "the If you unanimously find from very basis of the case," "deprive the defendant of a the evidence beyond a reasonable valuable right," or "vitally affect a defensive theory." 46 doubt that [appellant] on or about Appellant argues that he suffered actual harm from t

2013Under Almanza v: State, “unobjected-to jury charge error will not result in reversal of a conviction in the absence of ‘egregious harm.’ ” Allen v. State, 253 S.W.3d 260, 264 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (citing Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1984)).

2013Under Almanza v: State, “unobjected-to jury charge error will not result in reversal of a conviction in the absence of ‘egregious harm.’ ” Allen v. State, 253 S.W.3d 260, 264 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (citing Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1984)).

2026Errors that result in egregious harm are those “that affect the very basis of the case, deprive the defendant of a valuable right, vitally affect the defensive theory, or make a case for conviction clearly and significantly more persuasive.” Taylor v. State, 332 S.W.3d 483, 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 172 ).8 We therefore conduct an egregious-harm determination using the Almanza factors: • Here, the actual degree of harm in light of the jury charge in its entirety is minimal, if any.

2026Errors that result in egregious harm are those “that affect the very basis of the case, deprive the defendant of a valuable right, vitally affect the defensive theory, or make a case for conviction clearly and significantly more persuasive.” Taylor v. State, 332 S.W.3d 483, 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 172 ).8 We therefore conduct an egregious-harm determination using the Almanza factors: • Here, the actual degree of harm in light of the jury charge in its entirety is minimal, if any.

2023See Vasquez v. State, 389 S.W.3d 361, 370 (Tex. Crim.

2023See Vasquez v. State, 389 S.W.3d 361, 370 (Tex. Crim.

2005Bluitt v. State, 137 S.W.3d 51, 53 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (citing Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1985)); see also Kucha v. State, 686 S.W.2d 154, 155 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (ap-plyng Almanza standard to punishment charge).

2004Bluitt v. State , 137 S.W.3d 51, 53 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (citing Almanza v. State , 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)); see also Kucha v. State , 686 S.W.2d 154, 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (applyng Almanza standard to punishment charge).

1999In Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529, 553-54 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), the Court held that the Almanza standard has been supplanted by the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

1999In Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529, 553-54 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), the Court held that the Almanza standard has been supplanted by the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2015App. March 1, 2006) (per curiam) (not designated for publication) (reversing appellate court that did not conduct analysis using all Almanza factors); Huizar, 12 S.W.3d at 484–85 (“The error in this case derives from statutory violations of articles 36.14 and 37.07, and is purely ‘charge error’ under article 36.19.

2008When, as here, the defendant does not request an article 37.07, section 3(a) instruction or object to its omission, we review the error for egregious harm under the Almanza standard. (footnote: 2) Id.

2023Not only is a defendant required to timely object to a trial 10 court’s failing to follow Article 36.27’s procedures to preserve a complaint for our review, but “the Almanza standard is inapplicable.” Green, 912 S.W.2d at 193 .

2023Not only is a defendant required to timely object to a trial 10 court’s failing to follow Article 36.27’s procedures to preserve a complaint for our review, but “the Almanza standard is inapplicable.” Green, 912 S.W.2d at 193 .

2026See Campbell v. State, 664 S.W.3d 240 , 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022) (noting that State’s argument “undoubtedly helped to remedy the alleged error in the charge”); French v. State, 563 S.W.3d 228, 238 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (explaining that State’s closing arguments focused jury’s attention in way that rendered charge error harmless); Gelinas v. State, 398 S.W.3d 703, 709 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (plurality op.) (emphasizing “that jury arguments bear significantly on an Almanza analysis”). iii.

2026See Campbell v. State, 664 S.W.3d 240 , 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022) (noting that State’s argument “undoubtedly helped to remedy the alleged error in the charge”); French v. State, 563 S.W.3d 228, 238 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (explaining that State’s closing arguments focused jury’s attention in way that rendered charge error harmless); Gelinas v. State, 398 S.W.3d 703, 709 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (plurality op.) (emphasizing “that jury arguments bear significantly on an Almanza analysis”). iii.

2015To the contrary, the Almanza analysis has been used recently in Villareal v. State, 453 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. Crim.

2015To the contrary, the Almanza analysis has been used recently in Villareal v. State, 453 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. Crim.

1999Appellant argues, however, that the alleged error is not subject to Almanza analysis because it is an "absolute rule violation requiring no harm analysis." Appellant relies on Reyes v. State , 938 S.W.2d 718 (Tex. Crim.

1997In fact, in one paragraph of a footnote, the Court disregarded the Almanza analysis. 2 Instead, the Court chose to rely on Geesa "(believing) that . . . the Geesa Court intended to create an absolute systematic requirement that every charge, when the burden of proof required by the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, contain the definitional instruction on reasonable doubt." Reyes, 938 S.W.2d at 720 .