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

2022See also Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 750 (“Under the Almanza standard, the record must show that a defendant has suffered actual, rather than merely theoretical, harm from jury instruction error.”).

2022See also Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 750 (“Under the Almanza standard, the record must show that a defendant has suffered actual, rather than merely theoretical, harm from jury instruction error.”).

2025The Almanza analysis is fact specific and performed on a “case-by-case basis.” Gelinas v. State, 398 S.W.3d 703, 710 (Tex. Crim.

2025The Almanza analysis is fact specific and performed on a “case-by-case basis.” Gelinas v. State, 398 S.W.3d 703, 710 (Tex. Crim.

2015With these principles in mind, we will proceed to conduct a harm analysis using the Almanza factors. 3 See Dougherty v. State, PD-1411-05, 2006 WL 475802, at *1 (Tex. Crim.

2015With these principles in mind, we will proceed to conduct a harm analysis using the Almanza factors. 3 See Dougherty v. State, PD-1411-05, 2006 WL 475802, at *1 (Tex. Crim.

2011See id. at 305 (conducting an Almanza analysis and citing Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348 (Tex.Crim.

2011See id. at 305 (conducting an Almanza analysis and citing Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348 (Tex.Crim.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

2022See Igo v. State, 210 S.W.3d 645, 646 (Tex. Crim.

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.

2015App. Sept. 17, 2014) (analyzing Almanza factors when reviewing -for "some harm"); Reeves v. State, 420 S.W.3d 812, 817 (Tex. Crim.

2015App. Sept. 17, 2014) (analyzing Almanza factors when reviewing for “some harm”); Reeves v. State, 420 S.W.3d 812, 817 (Tex. Crim.

2015Atkison v. State, 923 S.W.2d 21, 27 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996).

2014“The harmfulness of error in a jury charge should be measured, at least in part, against the likelihood that the jury’s verdict was actually based upon an alternative theory of culpability not affected by erroneous portions of the charge.” Williams v. State, 226 S.W.3d 611, 618 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (citing Atkinson v. State, 923 S.W.2d 21, 27 (Tex. Crim.

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.

2026Based on this record and considering all four Almanza factors, we conclude the record as a whole does not reflect that any error affected “the very basis of the case, deprive[d] [Castillo] of a valuable right, vitally affect[ed] the defensive theory, or ma[d]e a case for conviction clearly and significantly more persuasive.” Taylor, 332 S.W.3d at 490 ; see also Nava, 415 S.W.3d at 298 (stating egregious harm requires showing defendant was “deprived of a fair and impartial trial”).

2013To determine the degree of harm under the Almanza standard, an appellate court reviews (1) “ ‘the entire jury chargef; (2) ] the state of the evidence, including the contested issues and weight of probative evidence^ and (3) ] the argument of counsel and any other relevant information revealed by the record of the trial as a whole.’ ” See Taylor v. State, 332 S.W.3d 483, 489 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (quoting Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 ). a.

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 .

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 .