jury charge contained error in Texas

2024App. 2013). 18 Whenever jury-charge error is asserted, “[o]ur first inquiry is whether the jury charge contained error.” Price v. State, 457 S.W.3d 437, 440 (Tex. Crim.

2021“Our first inquiry 13 is whether the jury charge contained error.” Price v. State, 457 S.W.3d 437, 440 (Tex. Crim.

2025See Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 744 .

2014Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738, 743 (Tex. Crim.

2022Egregious harm is a demanding standard, “and such a determination must be done on a case-by-case basis.” Id. (citing Hutch v. State, 922 S.W.2d 166, 171 (Tex. Crim.

2005See id.

2015A. Applicable Law Appellant did not object to the jury charge, therefore, any potential error in the charge is reviewed only for “egregious harm.” Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159, 174 (Tex. Crim.

2015A. Applicable Law Appellant did not object to the jury charge, therefore, any potential error in the charge is reviewed only for “egregious harm.” Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159, 174 (Tex. Crim.

2012Furthermore, the jury charge contained the standard curative language admonishing the jury not to consider the extent to which parole law might be applied to appellant, and there was no indication that the jury did not follow those instructions.2 See Igo v. State, 210 S.W.3d 645, 647 (Tex. Crim.

2011See Igo, 210 S.W.3d at 647 .

2026Cody Watson v. The State of Texas Page 12 STANDARD OF REVIEW A claim of jury charge error is reviewed using the procedure set out in Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim.

2024App. 2015) (citing Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171 ).

2021Nava v. State, 415 S.W.3d 289, 298 (Tex. Crim.

2020Nava v. State, 415 S.W.3d 289, 298 (Tex. Crim.

2015See Barrios v. State, 283 S.W.3d 348, 350 (Tex. Crim.

2015See Barrios v. State, 283 S.W.3d 348, 350 (Tex. Crim.

2015See id. § 20.01(b-1)(3) (listing “impeding the normal breathing or circulation of the blood” of victim as element of second-degree felony assault by strangulation); Murphy v. State, 44 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, no pet.) (“The trial court is obligated to charge the jury on the law applicable to the case.

2015See id. § 20.01(b-1)(3) (listing “impeding the normal breathing or circulation of the blood” of victim as element of second-degree felony assault by strangulation); Murphy v. State, 44 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, no pet.) (“The trial court is obligated to charge the jury on the law applicable to the case.

2009See Demps , 278 S.W.3d at 68 .

2009See Demps, 278 S.W.3d at 68 .

2025Ramirez cites our opinion in Lewis v. State, and we interpret his argument to be the same as one discussed there: the “jury charge was erroneous because it allowed the jury to find [the defendant] . . . guilty if two or more acts of sexual abuse occurred 4 during a specific period that was longer than thirty days, regardless of whether the acts occurred at least thirty days apart.” Lewis v. State, No. 06-21-00021-CR, 2022 WL 630288 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Mar. 4, 2002, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Smith v. State, 340 S.W.3d 41, 50 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

2025Cortez v. State, 469 S.W.3d 593, 598 (Tex. Crim.

2024See Valentine, 587 S.W.2d at 400–01; Bundy, 280 S.W.3d at 430 ; Rider, 2022 WL 1769116 , at *3.

2021USAA Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, 545 S.W.3d 479, 501 (Tex. 2018).

2020See Kirsch v. State, 357 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Tex. Crim.

2016See Barrera, 982 S.W.2d at 416 ; see also Gray, 152 S.W.3d at 127-28.

2015See Garcia v. State, 246 S.W.3d 121, 143 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, pet. ref’d) (holding that the same three paragraphs at issue in the present case “did not constitute a definition of reasonable doubt and therefore did not violate Paulson…[and thus] the trial court did not err by including the above language in the charge).

2014The jury charge contained an instruction limiting its consideration of his prior convictions to whatever measure of credibility they cared to ascribe to his testimony, and instructing the jury not to consider “the same for any other purpose.” See Lopez, 990 S.W.2d at 779 (concluding that error in admission of evidence of prior misdemeanor convictions for impeachment purposes was harmless, due in part to similar limiting instruction in jury charge).

2013See Gilmore, 2012 WL 6632920, at *14 .

2009See Renteria v. State , 206 S.W.3d 689, 707 (Tex. Crim.

1997Arceneaux v. State, 803 S.W.2d 267, 271 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) In Arceneaux , the jury charge contained an instruction requiring the jury to find "beyond a reasonable doubt that the exhibit introduced in evidence by the State is cocaine" before the defendant could be convicted.

1997Arceneaux v. State, 803 S.W.2d 267, 271 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) In Arceneaux , the jury charge contained an instruction requiring the jury to find “beyond a reasonable doubt that the exhibit introduced in evidence by the State is cocaine” before the defendant could be convicted.