# 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/9761148

## 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:** Concurrence by Miller
- **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/9761148

## 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

MILLER, Judge,
concurring.
Although there is merit in the dissenting opinion of Judge Clinton, I concur with the decision of the majority to dismiss the State’s petition in this case as improvidently granted because the issue of the relationship between fundamental error in the court’s charge and error in the court’s charge as contemplated by Article 36.19, V.A.C.C.P., has not been thoroughly briefed or argued by. either the State or the defense. Historically the advocacy system has served the judiciary well in charting the course of criminal jurisprudence in this state. If we are going to redefine fundamental error vis-a-vis the court’s charge to the jury, as perhaps we should, then let us do so when the issue is properly joined, either on motion for rehearing in this case or in a future case before the court. Because the dissent would raise and address the issue sua sponte in this case, I concur in dismissing the State’s petition.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761148. Public record. Not legal advice.