# State v. Toney

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · October 7, 1998 · 979 S.W.2d 642

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9769110

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Texas, v. Mark Anthony TONEY, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** October 7, 1998
- **Citations:** 979 S.W.2d 642; 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 132; 1998 WL 692437
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mansfield
- **Judges:** Price, Baird, Overstreet, Meyers, Mansfield, Keller, McCormick, Holland, Womack
- **Cited by:** 34 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/9769110

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “if the jury is given a partial or substantively correct charge on reasonable doubt, then any error therein is subject to harm analysis under Abdnor, Almanza, and [Article 36.19 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure]”
- noting placement of burden on defendant to show harm as difference between harm analysis under Almanza and that applicable to other errors

## Opinion text

MANSFIELD, Judge,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court. However, I am concerned that an elimination of the requirement that the jury be given the reasonable doubt instruction mandated by Geesa might breathe new life into the so-called reasonable hypothesis analytical construct eliminated by Geesa, and rendered largely meaningless by implication by Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Crim.App.1996).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9769110. Public record. Not legal advice.