Lang v. State

My dissenting Brother Teague is so determined to fulminate against the opinion of this Court in Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), that he blinks reality in at least one major and in a couple of relatively minor respects.1

A major reality of the “egregious harm” formulation developed in Almanza is that it is reactionary in the salutary sense that there is ample precedent to guide appellate courts in applying the test. Indeed, the opinion takes great pains to examine interpretations and constructions of former code of criminal procedure article 743 by judges of the Court soon…