Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Fowler v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)

Decided January 14, 2004No. 09-02-462-CRPublished

1ConcurrenceDon Burgess, Justice

Regretfully, I must only concur. Once again this court sees a case where a court has failed to track the indictment in the application paragraph of a jury charge, yet the majority finds no error. I believe this was error, see Bishop v. State, 914 S.W.2d 200, 202 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1995, pet. ref'd), and we should have conducted an Almanza harm analysis, as mentioned by the majority in their footnote one. See Chavis v. State, 807 S.W.2d 375, 378 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. ref'd).

*312Upon such an analysis, the uncontested evidence was that Fowler and the victim were not married.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Chavis v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1991
  2. Bishop v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1995

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API