non-constitutional error in Texas

2022“We will not reverse the trial court’s judgment for a non-constitutional error if, after reviewing the entire record, we have ‘fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect.’” Id. (quoting Beham, 476 S.W.3d at 738 (quoting Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex. Crim.

2017We will not reverse the trial court’s judgment for a non-constitutional error if, after reviewing the entire record, we have “ ‘fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect.’ ” Beham, 476 S.W.3d at 738 (quoting Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex. Crim.

2019Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(b), “a non-constitutional error must be disregarded unless it affected the defendant’s substantial rights, i.e., the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Id. (citing TEX.

2016P. 44.2(b), which provides that a court must disregard any errors that do not affect the defendant’s “substantial rights.” Hughes v. State, 12 S.W.3d 166, 167-68 (Tex.App. – Fort Worth 2000, no pet.) (citing Mosley v. 41 State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 259 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998) (op. on reh’g)); see also Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998) (evaluating error in admission of hearsay testimony under the standard for non-constitutional error).

2025Johnson v. State, 43 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Tex. Crim.

2024Johnson v. State, 43 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Tex. Crim.

2015A non-constitutional error “that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.” An error is reversible only when it has “a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex. Crim.

2010Casey, 215 S.W.3d at 885 (citing Garcia v. State, 126 S.W.3d 921 , 927 & n. 9 (Tex.Crim.App.2004)); King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (evaluating error’s influence on jury’s determination of punishment). *131 We review harm under the standard applicable to non-constitutional error.

2010A non-constitutional error does not affect a defendant’s substantial rights if, after examining the entire record, a reviewing court “has fair assurance that the error did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Garcia v. State, 126 S.W.3d 921, 927 (Tex.Crim.App.2004).

2010Casey, 215 S.W.3d at 885 (citing Garcia v. State, 126 S.W.3d 921 , 927 & n. 9 (Tex.Crim.App.2004)); King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (evaluating error’s influence on jury’s determination of punishment). *131 We review harm under the standard applicable to non-constitutional error.

2019Generally, an erroneous evidentiary ruling is non-constitutional error. 151 Non-constitutional error must be disregarded unless it affects the defendant’s substantial rights.152 We will not overturn a criminal conviction for non-constitutional error if, after reviewing the record as a whole, we have fair assurance that the error did not influence the 148 Rule 403; Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798, 806 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Gonzalez, 544 S.W.3d at 371 . 149 Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870, 879 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Gonzales, 544 S.W.3d at 372 . 150 Davis, 329 S.W.3d at 806 ; Gonzalez, 544 S.W.

2019Generally, an erroneous evidentiary ruling is non-constitutional error. 151 Non-constitutional error must be disregarded unless it affects the defendant’s substantial rights.152 We will not overturn a criminal conviction for non-constitutional error if, after reviewing the record as a whole, we have fair assurance that the error did not influence the 148 Rule 403; Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798, 806 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Gonzalez, 544 S.W.3d at 371 . 149 Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870, 879 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Gonzales, 544 S.W.3d at 372 . 150 Davis, 329 S.W.3d at 806 ; Gonzalez, 544 S.W.

2019An appellate court must disregard a non-constitutional error that does not affect a criminal defendant’s “substantial rights.” TEX.R.APP.P. 44.2(b); Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870, 884-85 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007).10 Under that rule, an appellate court may not reverse for non- constitutional error if the court, after examining the entire record, has a fair assurance that the error did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.

2019An appellate court must disregard a non-constitutional error that does not affect a criminal defendant’s “substantial rights.” TEX.R.APP.P. 44.2(b); Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870, 884-85 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007).

2019Generally, an erroneous evidentiary ruling is non-constitutional error. 151 Non-constitutional error must be disregarded unless it affects the defendant’s substantial rights.152 We will not overturn a criminal conviction for non-constitutional error if, after reviewing the record as a whole, we have fair assurance that the error did not influence the 148 Rule 403; Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798, 806 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Gonzalez, 544 S.W.3d at 371 . 149 Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870, 879 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Gonzales, 544 S.W.3d at 372 . 150 Davis, 329 S.W.3d at 806 ; Gonzalez, 544 S.W.

2019Generally, an erroneous evidentiary ruling is non-constitutional error. 151 Non-constitutional error must be disregarded unless it affects the defendant’s substantial rights.152 We will not overturn a criminal conviction for non-constitutional error if, after reviewing the record as a whole, we have fair assurance that the error did not influence the 148 Rule 403; Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798, 806 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Gonzalez, 544 S.W.3d at 371 . 149 Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870, 879 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Gonzales, 544 S.W.3d at 372 . 150 Davis, 329 S.W.3d at 806 ; Gonzalez, 544 S.W.

2016P. 44.2(b), which provides that a court must disregard any errors that do not affect the defendant’s “substantial rights.” Hughes v. State, 12 S.W.3d 166, 167-68 (Tex.App. – Fort Worth 2000, no pet.) (citing Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 259 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998) (op. on reh’g)); see also Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998) (evaluating error in admission of hearsay testimony under the standard for non-constitutional error).

2016P. 44.2(b), which provides that a court must disregard any errors that do not affect the defendant’s “substantial rights.” Hughes v. State, 12 S.W.3d 166, 167-68 (Tex.App. – Fort Worth 2000, no pet.) (citing Mosley v. 41 State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 259 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998) (op. on reh’g)); see also Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998) (evaluating error in admission of hearsay testimony under the standard for non-constitutional error).

2019App. P. 44.2(b); Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); see also Rodriguez v. State, 546 S.W.3d 843, 864-65 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, no pet.) (applying a non-constitutional error analysis to alleged erroneous admission of evidence during punishment hearing).

2019App. P. 44.2(b); Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); see also Rodriguez v. State, 546 S.W.3d 843, 864-65 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, no pet.) (applying a non-constitutional error analysis to alleged erroneous admission of evidence during punishment hearing).

2024A non-constitutional error “that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.” Freeman v. State, 340 S.W.3d 717, 728 (Tex. Crim.

2024A non-constitutional error “that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.” Freeman v. State, 340 S.W.3d 717, 728 (Tex. Crim.

2019Barshaw, 342 S.W.3d at 93 .

2013STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW “On appellate review, and pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(b), a non- constitutional error must be disregarded unless it affects the defendant’s substantial rights.” Barshaw v. State, 342 S.W.3d 91,93 (Tex. Crim.

2015Improper argument error of this type is non-constitutional in nature, and a non-constitutional error “that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.” TEX.R.APP.P. 44.2(b); Freeman v. State, 340 S.W.3d 717, 728-29 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011); Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677 , 692–93 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000).

2011P. 44.2(b); Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677, 692-93 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).

2018Even viewed through the prism of TEX.R.APP.P. 44.2(b), a non-constitutional error requires reversal only when it affects a substantial right, meaning that the error must have “a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Rich v. State, 160 S.W.3d 575, 577 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). 5 obligation than the prosecution.

2007Rich, 160 S.W.3d at 577 ("The Court of Appeals found this to be non-constitutional error and applied Rule 44.2(b).

2000Texas does not recognize diminished capacity as an affirmative defense i.e. , a lesser form of the defense of insanity.  Jackson v. State , 160 S.W.3d 568, 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). It is “simply a failure-of-proof defense in which the defendant claims that the State failed to prove that the defendant had the required state of mind at the time of the offense.” Id . The standard for non-constitutional error applies. See Morales v. State , 32 S.W.3d 862, 866-67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (remanding case to the First Court of Appeals to evaluate the exclusion of defendant’s expert testimony

1999Texas does not recognize diminished capacity as an affirmative defense i.e. , a lesser form of the defense of insanity.  Jackson v. State , 160 S.W.3d 568, 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). It is “simply a failure-of-proof defense in which the defendant claims that the State failed to prove that the defendant had the required state of mind at the time of the offense.” Id . The standard for non-constitutional error applies. See Morales v. State , 32 S.W.3d 862, 866-67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (remanding case to the First Court of Appeals to evaluate the exclusion of defendant’s expert testimony

2025See Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204, 218-19 (Tex. Crim.

2015Law A trial court’s ruling on the exclusion or admission of evidence is typically reviewed for abuse of discretion and, if error is found, under a non-constitutional standard.69 However, the issue of the existence of a defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting it,70 and a clearly erroneous ruling that effectively prevents a defendant from presenting that defense is constitutional error.71 Thus, the propriety of the court of appeals’s holding turns on whether appellant was entitled to an instruction on defense of a third person. 69 Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d

2016See Schutz, 63 S.W.3d at 444-46 ; see also Lopez, 288 S.W.3d at 158 (“The admission of Dr. Hill’s truth testimony is non-constitutional error, and a non-constitutional error ‘that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.’ ”) (quoting Tex. R.

2015Br. at 13-14) (citing Lopez v. State, 288 S.W.3d 148, 178 (Tex. App.– Corpus Christi 2009, pet. ref’d)a (in evaluating whether a non- constitutional error affected an appellant’s substantial right, and where the evidence is otherwise “not overwhelming,” even the uncertainty of 12 harm requires reversal); Menefee v. State, 614 S.W.2d 167, 168 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (finding reversible error where prosecutor’s remarks bolstered the testimony of the only witness); Garrett v. State, 641 S.W.2d 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (hearsay testimony offered to bolster testimony of State’s principal witness w

2014The appropriate harm analysis is therefore the one set out in Rule 44.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which dictates that a non-constitutional error “that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.” Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571, 592 (Tex. Crim.

2012The appropriate harm analysis is therefore the one set out in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(b), which dictates that a non-constitutional error “that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.” Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571, 592 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (quoting Tex.R.App.

2015Any error in prohibiting counsel from asking proper questions during voir dire is generally considered non-constitutional error.26 Non-constitutional error that does not affect a defendant’s substantial rights must be disregarded.27 To determine whether a defendant’s substantial rights were affected, we must assess whether the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.28 In assessing harm from the denial of a proper question to the venire, we are to examine the record in a manner similar to how we examine the record when assessing harm from err

2015If we determine a trial court erred by improperly limiting a defendant’s voir dire, we generally consider it a non-constitutional error and conduct the harm analysis under rule 44.2(b). 1 See Easley v. State, 424 S.W.3d 535, 542 (Tex. Crim.

2016See Schutz, 63 S.W.3d at 444-46 ; see also Lopez, 288 S.W.3d at 158 (“The admission of Dr. Hill’s truth testimony is non-constitutional error, and a non-constitutional error ‘that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.’ ”) (quoting Tex. R.

2002For example, in King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex.Crim.App.1997), our first case addressing the meaning of the rule, we stated that a non-constitutional error requires reversal on appeal if the error “had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” The following year, in Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Crim.App.1998), we interpreted the rule differently, explaining that a non-constitutional error does not require reversal “if the appellate court, after examining the record as a whole, has fair assurance that the error did not influence t

2010Id.

2010Id.

2024App. 2011); see Brown , 270 S.W.3d at 570 (concluding that even when the State makes an improper jury argument, it is error to deny a mistrial only if the argument is “extreme or manifestly improper”).

2024App. 2011); see Brown, 270 S.W.3d at 570 (concluding that even when the State makes an improper jury argument, it is error to deny a mistrial only if the argument is “extreme or manifestly improper”).

2025Non-constitutional error that does not affect a substantial right is harmless if the court is “fairly assured that the error did not influence the jury or had but a slight effect[.]” Ray v. State, 19 178 S.W.3d 833, 836 (Tex. Crim.

2024Non-constitutional error does not affect a substantial right and is harmless if the court is “fairly assured that the error did not influence the jury or had but a slight effect[.]” Ray, 178 S.W.3d at 836 .

2025P. 44.2(b); see Reese v. State, 33 S.W.3d 238, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (providing that a non-constitutional error will not result in reversal, if after examining the record as a whole, the reviewing court is reasonably assured the error did not influence the jury’s verdict or had but a slight effect); Koury, 684 S.W.3d at 551; see also Cook v. State, 665 S.W.3d 595 , 600 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023) (“The erroneous admission of evidence ‘will not result in reversal when other such evidence was received without objection, either before or after the complained-of ruling.’”) (quoting Leday v. State,

2004Consequently, “M criminal conviction should not be overturned for a non-constitutional error if the appellate court, after examining the record as a whole, has fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect.” Reese v. State, 33 S.W.3d 238, 243 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (citing Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Crim.App.1998)). *719 In assessing the likelihood that the jury’s decision was adversely affected by the error, the appellate court should consider everything in the record, including any testimony or physical evidence admitted for the jury’s cons

2015A trial court’s error, if it was error, in allowing a witness to remain in the courtroom in violation of Rule 614 is non- constitutional error.59 Rule 44.2(b) provides that a non-constitutional error “that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.” In deciding whether the error of allowing a witness to remain in the courtroom was harmful, reviewing courts consider 1) whether the witness actually heard the testimony of other witnesses, and 2) whether the witness’s testimony either contradicted the testimony of a witness from the opposing side or corroborated testimony of a witness

2015A trial court’s error, if it was error, in allowing a witness to remain in the courtroom in violation of Rule 614 is non- constitutional error.59 Rule 44.2(b) provides that a non-constitutional error “that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.” In deciding whether the error of allowing a witness to remain in the courtroom was harmful, reviewing courts consider 1) whether the witness actually heard the testimony of other witnesses, and 2) whether the witness’s testimony either contradicted the testimony of a witness from the opposing side or corroborated testimony of a witness

2017Id. at 714 .

2012Id. at 708-09 .

2025If the reviewing court finds a violation, that error must be reviewed under “the non- constitutional standard for reversible error in criminal cases.” Proenza, 541 S.W.3d at 801 (discussing TEX.

2024Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(b), “the non-constitutional standard for reversible error in criminal cases, requires that ‘[a]ny other [non-constitutional] error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting TEX.

2026See id.

2021Schmutz, 440 S.W.3d at 39 (citing TEX.