# Almanza v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · February 27, 1985 · 686 S.W.2d 157

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761147

## Case

- **Full name:** Cipriano Ramon ALMANZA, Jr., Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** February 27, 1985
- **Citations:** 686 S.W.2d 157; 1985 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1230
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Teague
- **Judges:** Miller, Clinton, Onion, Teague, Davis, McCormick, Campbell
- **Cited by:** 6,047 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Rodriguez v. State, 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 186 (1988).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 4
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761147

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, in reviewing complaint of charge error, court of appeals must first decide whether jury instruction is erroneous, and, if so, court then determines whether instruction harmed defendant by applying either “some harm” standard if complaint was preserved for appeal,…
- holding that, when conducting a harm analysis with respect to purported charge error, reviewing courts should consider the charge itself; the state of the evidence, including contested issues and the weight of the probative evidence; arguments of counsel; and any other relevan…
- holding that “the actual degree of harm must be assayed in light of the entire jury charge, the state of the evidence, including the contested issues and weight of probative evidence, the argument of counsel and any other relevant information revealed by the record of the tria…
- holding that the actual degree of harm must be assayed in light of the entire jury charge, the state of the evidence, including the contested issues and weight of probative evidence, the argument of counsel and any other relevant information revealed by the record of the trial…
- holding that the omission of an element from the authorization paragraph in a non-capital case is error subject to a harm analysis in which the appellate court reviews the entire jury charge and the state of the evidence in the case to decide whether the error requires reversal

## Opinion text

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
TEAGUE, Judge.
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals stated the following in Almanza v. State, 645 S.W.2d 885 (Tex.App. — Ft. Worth 1983):
Although many recent opinions have offhandedly dismissed the changing of ‘and’ in the indictment to ‘or’ in the court’s charge, such approach is dangerous and usually fatal in matters where aggravation or jurisdiction is involved. In the instant cause of aggravated rape the indictment joined the allegation of threats of death to the standard form allegation of rape by the word and. In the court’s charge, [however], the aggravation feature was disjoined from rape by the word or. Such constitutes fundamental error. Messenger v. State, 638 S.W.2d 883 (Tex.Cr.App.1982).
The cause is reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings under this indictment.
The State has filed a petition for discretionary review with this Court, asking us to make the determination whether the above decision of the Court of Appeals is correct. We have concluded, after the respective parties favored this Court with well written supplemental briefs, as well as making outstanding oral arguments, that the decision of the Court of Appeals is in all things correct.
The State’s petition for discretionary review was improvidently granted. It is therefore-ordered dismissed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761147. Public record. Not legal advice.