# Warner v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · February 13, 2008 · 245 S.W.3d 458

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9665059

## Case

- **Full name:** Craig Jonathan WARNER, Appellant v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** February 13, 2008
- **Citations:** 245 S.W.3d 458; 2008 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 217; 2008 WL 375503
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Keller
- **Judges:** Womack, Meyers, Price, Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb, Cochran, Keller
- **Cited by:** 404 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9665059

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding, pursuant to Almanza v. State, that there is no burden to prove harm in the jury charge error context
- explaining that egregious harm is assessed in light of the entire jury charge, the state of the evidence, the arguments of counsel, and any other relevant information in the record
- holding that the failure to instruct the jury on a required matter when no one requested the instruction may be reversed only when the omission caused egregious harm
- stating that "the jury charge is incorrect because it does not make clear that the jury had to find unanimously on at least one statutory offense"
- stating that the denial of a fair trial is the standard for egregious harm

## Opinion text

KELLER, P.J.,
filed a dissenting opinion.
The Court overrules five different specific challenges to the court of appeals’s harm analysis but remands the case because the court of appeals erroneously *466 stated that appellant had a burden to show harm. But despite this mistake, which was based upon our own language in our own opinion, 1 the court of appeals conducted what was essentially a correct harm analysis. The court of appeals’s decision does not appear to depend in any way upon whether appellant had a burden to show harm.
The prosecution was based upon a single incident in which appellant was alleged to have sexually assaulted the victims in multiple ways. The proof of sexual assault came from the victims’ testimony and some medical evidence. The defensive position was that “it never happened.” 2 The court of appeals found the error to be harmless because the contested issue was not which act occurred, but whether any of them occurred. As the court of appeals stated, if the jury had believed appellant’s theory or disbelieved the victims, it would have acquitted him. 3
I think this analysis fully supports the court of appeals’s conclusion (which makes no reference to any burden) that “error did not rise to the level of egregious harm.” I believe that a remand to redo the harm analysis would be a waste of judicial resources.
Consequently, I respectfully dissent to the Court’s decision to remand the case.
. Dickey v. State, 22 S.W.3d 490, 492 (Tex. Crim.App.1999).
. Warner v. State, 2005 WL 2313591 , at *7, 2005 Tex.App. LEXIS 7790, *21.
. Id.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9665059. Public record. Not legal advice.