probable impact error in Texas

2026See Wells, 611 S.W.3d at 410; see also Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 119 (“[T]he appellate court should calculate as much as possible the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the existence of other evidence.”).

2026See Wells, 611 S.W.3d at 410; see also Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 119 (“[T]he appellate court should calculate as much as possible the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the existence of other evidence.”).

2024We must “calculate, as nearly as possible, the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the other evidence.” McCarthy v. State, 65 S.W.3d 47, 55 (Tex. Crim.

2023We must “calculate, as nearly as possible, the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the other evidence.” McCarthy v. State, 65 S.W.3d 47, 55 (Tex. Crim.

2007I would hold that the error was harmless under the Dinkins factors. (1) Source of the error The source of the error was the State’s single question about appellant’s post-arrest silence as to his claim of self-defense prior to appellant’s counsel’s objection and its single repetition of the question after the objection was overruled. (2) Extent to which the State emphasized, the error There was no other mention of appellant’s post-arrest silence, so this evidence was not strongly emphasized by the State. (3) Weight a juror would probably place on appellant’s post-arrest silence In applying the

2007I would hold that the error was harmless under the Dinkins factors. (1) Source of the error The source of the error was the State's single question about appellant's post-arrest silence as to his claim of self-defense *295 prior to appellant's counsel's objection and its single repetition of the question after the objection was overruled. (2) Extent to which the State emphasized the error There was no other mention of appellant's post-arrest silence, so this evidence was not strongly emphasized by the State. (3) Weight a juror would probably place on appellant's post-arrest silence In applying

2025See Clay, 240 S.W.3d at 904 .

2023Crayton, 485 S.W.3d at 505 (quoting Clay v. State, 240 S.W.3d 895, 904 (Tex. Crim.

1997Moreover, we "must calculate the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the existence of the other evidence...." Orona v. State, 791 S.W.2d 125, 130 (Tex.Cr.App. 1990).

1997Moreover, we “must calculate the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the existence of the other evidence.... ” Orona v. State, 791 S.W.2d 125, 130 (Tex.Cr.App.1990).

2022“In making a harm analysis, we examine the entire trial record and calculate, as much as possible, the probable impact of the error upon the rest of the evidence.” Coble, 330 S.W.3d at 280 .

2021“In making a harm analysis, we examine the entire trial record,” including the other evidence admitted, the jury instructions, the parties’ theories of the case, closing arguments, and voir dire, “and calculate, as much as possible, the probable impact of the error upon the rest of the evidence.” See Coble, 330 S.W.3d at 280 ; Sandoval, 409 S.W.3d at 288 .

2025App. 2020); see also Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 119 (“[T]he appellate court should calculate as much as possible the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the existence of other evidence.”). “[A]n analysis for whether a particular constitutional error is harmless should take into account any and every circumstance apparent in the record that logically informs an appellate determination whether ‘beyond a reasonable doubt [that particular] error did not contribute to the conviction or punishment.’” Snowden v. State, 353 S.W.3d 815, 822 (Tex. Crim.

2020Id.; see also Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 119 (“[T]he appellate court should calculate as much as possible the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the existence of other evidence.”). 11 We “should take into account any and every circumstance apparent in the record that logically informs an appellate determination whether ‘beyond a reasonable doubt [the trial court’s] error did not contribute to the conviction or punishment.’” Snowden v. State, 353 S.W.3d 815, 822 (Tex. Crim.

2024As a reviewing court, we must “calculate, as nearly as possible, the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the record as a whole.” Id. (quoting Wall v. State, 184 S.W.3d 730, 746 (Tex. Crim.

2023We “calculate, as nearly as possible, the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the record as a whole.” Wall v. State, 184 S.W.3d 730, 746 (Tex. Crim.

2015Factors to Consider “In making a harm analysis, we examine the entire trial record and calculate, as much as possible, the probable impact of the error- upon the rest of the evidence.” Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253, 280 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (citing Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862, 867 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Miles v. State, 918 S.W.2d 511, 517 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)); see also Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 357-58 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).

2012"In making a harm analysis, we examine the entire trial record and calculate, as much as possible, the probable impact of the error upon the rest of the evidence." Id . (citing Morales v. State , 32 S.W.3d 862, 867 (Tex. Crim.

2025Thus, we must “calculate, as nearly as possible, the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the other evidence.” Neal v. State, 256 S.W.3d 264, 284 (Tex. Crim.

2021In conducting our analysis, “we must ‘calculate, as nearly as possible, the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the other evidence.’” Neal v. State, 256 S.W.3d 264, 284 (Tex. Crim.

2015Factors to Consider “In making a harm analysis, we examine the entire trial record and calculate, as much as possible, the probable impact of the error- upon the rest of the evidence.” Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253, 280 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (citing Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862, 867 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Miles v. State, 918 S.W.2d 511, 517 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)); see also Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 357-58 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).

2013Id.; Miles v. State, 918 S.W.2d 511, 517 (Tex.Crim.App.1996).

2026We must “calculate, as nearly as possible, the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the other evidence.” Foyt v. State, 602 S.W.3d 23 , 45 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. ref’d) (quoting Jones, 119 S.W.3d at 777 ).

2019We must “calculate, as nearly as possible, the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the other evidence.” Id.

2015Simpson v. State, 227 S.W.3d 855, 858-59 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.); Miles v. State, 204 S.W.3d 822, 828 (Tex. Crim.

2015Simpson v. State, 227 S.W.3d 855, 858-59 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.); Miles v. State, 204 S.W.3d 822, 828 (Tex. Crim.

2023Coble, 330 S.W.3d at 280 ; Torres, 424 S.W.3d at 260 .

2022Id.; see also Torres v. State, 424 S.W.3d 245, 260 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d).

2002App. P. 44.2(a); Shelby, 819 S.W.2d at 546-47 .  In making this determination, we do not focus on the propriety of the trial's outcome but on calculating, as nearly as possible, the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the other evidence.  Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 119 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Bratton v. State, 156 S.W.3d 689, 693 ( Tex. App .—Dallas 2005, no pet. h.).  In other words, the question is not whether the legally admitted evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.  McCarthy v. State, 65 S.W.3d 47, 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (quoting Satterwhite v.

2002App. P. 44.2(a); Shelby, 819 S.W.2d at 546-47 .  In making this determination, we do not focus on the propriety of the trial's outcome but on calculating, as nearly as possible, the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the other evidence.  Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 119 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Bratton v. State, 156 S.W.3d 689, 693 ( Tex. App .—Dallas 2005, no pet. h.).  In other words, the question is not whether the legally admitted evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.  McCarthy v. State, 65 S.W.3d 47, 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (quoting Satterwhite v.

2019Id. (citing Davis v. State, 203 S.W.3d 845, 852 (Tex. Crim.

2016Clay v. State, 240 S.W.3d 895, 904 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (citing Davis v. State, 203 S.W.3d 845, 852 (Tex.Crim.App.2006)).

2015Id. at 93; see Coble, 330 S.W.3d at 280 (in conducting harm analysis “we examine the entire trial record and calculate, as much as possible, the probable impact of the error upon the rest of the evidence”); see also Moon v. State, 44 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d).

2014Id. at 93; see Coble, 330 S.W.3d at 280 (in conducting harm analysis “we examine the entire trial record and calculate, 9 as much as possible, the probable impact of the error upon the rest of the evidence”); see also Moon v. State, 44 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d).

2002App. P. 44.2(a); Shelby, 819 S.W.2d at 546-47 .  In making this determination, we do not focus on the propriety of the trial's outcome but on calculating, as nearly as possible, the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the other evidence.  Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 119 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Bratton v. State, 156 S.W.3d 689, 693 ( Tex. App .—Dallas 2005, no pet. h.).  In other words, the question is not whether the legally admitted evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.  McCarthy v. State, 65 S.W.3d 47, 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (quoting Satterwhite v.

2002App. P. 44.2(a); Shelby, 819 S.W.2d at 546-47 .  In making this determination, we do not focus on the propriety of the trial's outcome but on calculating, as nearly as possible, the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the other evidence.  Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 119 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Bratton v. State, 156 S.W.3d 689, 693 ( Tex. App .—Dallas 2005, no pet. h.).  In other words, the question is not whether the legally admitted evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.  McCarthy v. State, 65 S.W.3d 47, 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (quoting Satterwhite v.

2023In other words, we endeavor to “calculate as much as possible the probable impact of the error,” Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 356 (Tex. Crim.

2015Factors to Consider “In making a harm analysis, we examine the entire trial record and calculate, as much as possible, the probable impact of the error- upon the rest of the evidence.” Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253, 280 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (citing Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862, 867 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Miles v. State, 918 S.W.2d 511, 517 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)); see also Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 357-58 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).

2015Id. at 93; see Coble, 330 S.W.3d at 280 (in conducting harm analysis “we examine the entire trial record and calculate, as much as possible, the probable impact of the error upon the rest of the evidence”); see also Moon v. State, 44 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d).

2014Id. at 93; see Coble, 330 S.W.3d at 280 (in conducting harm analysis “we examine the entire trial record and calculate, 9 as much as possible, the probable impact of the error upon the rest of the evidence”); see also Moon v. State, 44 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d).

2015In making a harm analysis, reviewing courts examine the entire trial record and calculate, as much as possible, the probable impact of the error upon the rest of the 28 See Martin v. State, 176 S.W.3d 887, 897 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2005, no pet.); Johnson v. State, 84 S.W.3d 726, 729 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d). 29 TEX.

2015In making a harm analysis, reviewing courts examine the entire trial record and calculate, as much as possible, the probable impact of the error upon the rest of the 28 See Martin v. State, 176 S.W.3d 887, 897 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2005, no pet.); Johnson v. State, 84 S.W.3d 726, 729 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d). 29 TEX.

2026App. 2020) (quoting Love v. State, 543 S.W.3d 835, 846 (Tex. Crim.

2020To that end, the reviewing court “should calculate as much as possible the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the existence of other evidence.” Love, 543 S.W.3d at 846 .

1992See Belyeu v. State, 791 S.W.2d 66, 74 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568, 587 (Tex.Crim.App.1989).

1991Undertaking to calculate the probable impact of the error in light of all other evidence admitted at trial, citing Belyeu v. State, 791 S.W.2d 66 (Tex.Cr.App.1989) and Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Cr.App.1989), the court of appeals noted that in his first petition for discretionary review appellant did not challenge its original finding that the evidence was sufficient with respect to the battery, and did not dispute that raising the hood to take it amounts to burglary of a motor vehicle. 2 From those premises the court *580 believed the error harmless for one reason, viz: “The jury ha

2023Crayton, 485 S.W.3d at 505 (quoting Clay v. State, 240 S.W.3d 895, 904 (Tex. Crim.

2023Crayton, 485 S.W.3d at 505 (alterations in original) (quoting Clay v. State, 240 S.W.3d 895, 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)).