absent error in Texas

2025Constitutional error does not contribute to the conviction if the verdict “would have been the same absent the error.” Clay v. State, 240 S.W.3d 895, 904 (Tex. Crim.

2023Constitutional error does not contribute to the conviction if the verdict “would have been the same absent the error.” Clay v. State, 240 S.W.3d 895, 904 (Tex. Crim.

2020The Neder Court stated: “[W]here a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, such that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error, the erroneous instruction is properly found to be harmless.” 527 U.S. at 17 .

2018Under Chapman , a federal constitutional error "did not contribute to the verdict obtained" if the verdict "would have been the same absent the error[.]" Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 , 15-18, 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 1837-38, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999).

2026If the verdict “would have been the same absent the error then the error is harmless.” Davis v. State, 268 S.W.3d 683, 707 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, pet. ref’d).

2016App. 1998) (op. on reh’g), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1070 (1999); see also Davis v. State, 268 S.W.3d 683 , 706–07 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, pet. ref’d) (“In applying a rule 44.2(a) harm analysis to [evidence] erroneously admitted over the defendant’s Confrontation Clause objection, the Court of Criminal Appeals has instructed us that if the verdict or punishment would have been the same absent the error then the error is harmless.”).

2009See Dominguez v. Castaneda, 163 S.W.3d 318, 326 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2005, pet. denied).

2009See Dominguez v. Castaneda, 163 S.W.3d 318, 326 (Tex.App.–El Paso 2005, pet. denied).

2008Hedgpeth v. Pulido, No. 07-544, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 8881, at *5-6 (Dec. 2, 2008) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 11 (1999)) (“harmless-error analysis applies to instructional errors so long as the error at issue does not categorically ‘vitiat[e] all the jury’s findings’”); see Neder, 527 U.S. at 19 (jury charge omitted element of offense; Court held that if, after reviewing the record, “the court cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been 5 the same absent the error . . . it should not find the error harmless”); Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 579-80

2008Hedgpeth v. Pulido , No. 07-544, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 8881, at *5-6 (Dec. 2, 2008) (quoting Neder v. United States , 527 U.S. 1, 11 (1999)) ("harmless-error analysis applies to instructional errors so long as the error at issue does not categorically 'vitiat[e] all the jury's findings'"); see Neder , 527 U.S. at 19 (jury charge omitted element of offense; Court held that if, after reviewing the record, "the court cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error . . . it should not find the error harmless"); Rose v. Clark , 478 U.S. 570, 579-8

2008See Dunn, 442 U.S. at 107 , 99 S.Ct. 2190 (it violates due-process to send an accused to prison on “a charge on which he was never tried”).

2008See Dunn, 442 U.S. at 107 , 99 S.Ct. 2190 (it violates due-process to send an accused to prison on “a charge on which he was never tried”).

2008Hedgpeth v. Pulido, No. 07-544, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 8881, at *5-6 (Dec. 2, 2008) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 11 (1999)) (“harmless-error analysis applies to instructional errors so long as the error at issue does not categorically ‘vitiat[e] all the jury’s findings’”); see Neder, 527 U.S. at 19 (jury charge omitted element of offense; Court held that if, after reviewing the record, “the court cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been 5 the same absent the error . . . it should not find the error harmless”); Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 579-80

2008Hedgpeth v. Pulido , No. 07-544, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 8881, at *5-6 (Dec. 2, 2008) (quoting Neder v. United States , 527 U.S. 1, 11 (1999)) ("harmless-error analysis applies to instructional errors so long as the error at issue does not categorically 'vitiat[e] all the jury's findings'"); see Neder , 527 U.S. at 19 (jury charge omitted element of offense; Court held that if, after reviewing the record, "the court cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error . . . it should not find the error harmless"); Rose v. Clark , 478 U.S. 570, 579-8

2008Hedgpeth v. Pulido, No. 07-544, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 8881, at *5-6 (Dec. 2, 2008) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 11 (1999)) (“harmless-error analysis applies to instructional errors so long as the error at issue does not categorically ‘vitiat[e] all the jury’s findings’”); see Neder, 527 U.S. at 19 (jury charge omitted element of offense; Court held that if, after reviewing the record, “the court cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been 5 the same absent the error . . . it should not find the error harmless”); Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 579-80

2008Hedgpeth v. Pulido , No. 07-544, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 8881, at *5-6 (Dec. 2, 2008) (quoting Neder v. United States , 527 U.S. 1, 11 (1999)) ("harmless-error analysis applies to instructional errors so long as the error at issue does not categorically 'vitiat[e] all the jury's findings'"); see Neder , 527 U.S. at 19 (jury charge omitted element of offense; Court held that if, after reviewing the record, "the court cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error . . . it should not find the error harmless"); Rose v. Clark , 478 U.S. 570, 579-8

2011Compare Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993) ("The inquiry ... is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.”) with Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 17 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (“[W]here a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that [an element of the offense that was erroneously omitted from the jury charge authorizing conviction] was uncontested and s

2011Compare Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993) ("The inquiry ... is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.”) with Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 17 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (“[W]here a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that [an element of the offense that was erroneously omitted from the jury charge authorizing conviction] was uncontested and s

2011Compare Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993) ("The inquiry ... is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.”) with Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 17 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (“[W]here a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that [an element of the offense that was erroneously omitted from the jury charge authorizing conviction] was uncontested and s

2011Compare Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993) ("The inquiry ... is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.”) with Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 17 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (“[W]here a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that [an element of the offense that was erroneously omitted from the jury charge authorizing conviction] was uncontested and s

2007Appellant's sole ground for review states: This court of appeals' decision conflicts with another court of appeals' decision on the same issue, viz: whether a trial court should include a sua sponte reasonable doubt instruction regarding extraneous offense evidence in the guilt-innocence phase of a trial absent a defense request for such or an objection to the omission of said instruction. [2] See Rodgers v. State, 180 S.W.3d 716, 719-20 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005, no pet.); Chapa v. State, No. 04-02-00346-CR, 2003 WL 1025148 , at *2-3, 2003 Tex.App.

2007See Rodgers v. State, 180 S.W.3d 716, 719-20 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005, no pet.); Chapa v. State, No. 04-02-00346-CR, 2003 WL 1025148 , at ⅜2-3, 2003 Tex.App.

2024Add to the inconsistent stories Johnson gave law enforcement the fact that he was not home until about 4:00 a.m. after Kenney was murdered and the fact that he did not seem surprised to see law enforcement at his home at that early hour, those circumstances tend to connect Johnson to Kenney’s murder to an extent that the purpose of the absent instruction was “fulfilled.” Herron, 86 S.W.3d at 632 (“Once it is determined that such non-accomplice evidence exists, the purpose of the instruction 11 In Casanova, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals applied an “egregious harm analysis under Almanza/Sa

2018In noncapital cases, the federal constitutional right to a jury trial does not extend to the discretionary determination of what punishment to assess.16 The right to a jury trial on the issue of 11 Id. at 1913. 12 United States v. Davila, 569 U.S. 597, 611 (2013). 13 See id.; United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 263 (2010); Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999); Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468-69 (1997). 14 Neder, 527 U.S. at 9-13 . 15 Id. at 17 (“[W]here a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhe

2018In noncapital cases, the federal constitutional right to a jury trial does not extend to the discretionary determination of what punishment to assess.16 The right to a jury trial on the issue of 11 Id. at 1913. 12 United States v. Davila, 569 U.S. 597, 611 (2013). 13 See id.; United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 263 (2010); Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999); Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468-69 (1997). 14 Neder, 527 U.S. at 9-13 . 15 Id. at 17 (“[W]here a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhe

2018In noncapital cases, the federal constitutional right to a jury trial does not extend to the discretionary determination of what punishment to assess.16 The right to a jury trial on the issue of 11 Id. at 1913. 12 United States v. Davila, 569 U.S. 597, 611 (2013). 13 See id.; United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 263 (2010); Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999); Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468-69 (1997). 14 Neder, 527 U.S. at 9-13 . 15 Id. at 17 (“[W]here a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhe

2018In noncapital cases, the federal constitutional right to a jury trial does not extend to the discretionary determination of what punishment to assess.16 The right to a jury trial on the issue of 11 Id. at 1913. 12 United States v. Davila, 569 U.S. 597, 611 (2013). 13 See id.; United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 263 (2010); Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999); Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468-69 (1997). 14 Neder, 527 U.S. at 9-13 . 15 Id. at 17 (“[W]here a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhe

2017See id. at 144 .

2016Clay, 240 S.W.3d at 904 (citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 , 15–18 (1999). –11– “A mistrial is the trial court’s remedy for improper conduct that is ‘so prejudicial that expenditure of further time and expense would be wasteful and futile.’” Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72, 77 (Tex. Crim.

2015See Reata Const. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 , 374 n.1 (Tex. 2006). 2 See Reata Const. Corp., 197 S.W.3d at 374 . 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 See id.; City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 380 (Tex. 2009). 6 Reata Const. Corp., 197 S.W.3d at 374 . 7 See Travis Centr.

2015See Texans Uniting for Reform & Freedom v. Saenz, 319 S.W.3d 914, 920 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010, pet. denied) (internal citation omitted).

2015See Reata Const. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 , 374 n.1 (Tex. 2006). 2 See Reata Const. Corp., 197 S.W.3d at 374 . 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 See id.; City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 380 (Tex. 2009). 6 Reata Const. Corp., 197 S.W.3d at 374 . 7 See Travis Centr.

2015See Reata Const. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 , 374 n.1 (Tex. 2006). 2 See Reata Const. Corp., 197 S.W.3d at 374 . 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 See id.; City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 380 (Tex. 2009). 6 Reata Const. Corp., 197 S.W.3d at 374 . 7 See Travis Centr.

2015Snowden v. State, 353 S.W.3d 815, 821 (Tex. Crim.

2008Error is structural only if it “affects ‘the entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end’ ” or “affects ‘the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply [being] an error in the trial process itself.’ ” Johnson, 169 S.W.3d at 237 (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309-10 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991)); see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) (“harmless-error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or inno

2008Error is structural only if it “affects ‘the entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end’ ” or “affects ‘the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply [being] an error in the trial process itself.’ ” Johnson, 169 S.W.3d at 237 (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309-10 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991)); see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) (“harmless-error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or inno