## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . P D –1121–09 EU G EN E M ER C I ER , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE THI RTEENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

HI DALG O CO UNTY M E YE RS , J . , d eli v er ed th e o p inion o f the u n a n im o u s C o u rt. O P I N I O N A ppel l ant , E ugene M er ci er , w as convi ct ed of c ons pi r acyt o comm i tbarr atry . T he ju ryse n ten c e d h im to tw o y e a rs’ c o n f in e m e n t, su sp e n d e d f

o r f iv e y e a rs w ith c o m m u n ity s upervi s i on, and a f

i ne of $7, 500. T he tr i al courtgr ant ed A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on fora new tr i al and ent er ed an or derof ac qui t t al bas ed on i ns uffi ci entevi dence . T he courtof ap p ea ls r ev erse d the tri al co u rtan d rem an d ed the c au se f o r en tryo f th e o ri g inal jury v e rd ic t. Stat e v. Mer ci er , 164 S. W . 3d 799 ( T ex. A pp. –C orpus C hr i s t i - E di nbur g 2005)Merc ier–Pag e 2

(Merci er I

). O n re m a n d , the trial c o u rt re d u c e d th e se n ten c e to six m o n th s in sta te ja il, s us pended f

ortw o y ear s , and a f

i ne of $7, 500. A ppel l antappea l ed, and the courtof appea l s r ever s ed the tr i al court ’ s j udgm entand di s m i s s ed the ca s e bec aus e i tgr ant ed the lim ita tio n s c la im . Me rc ierv . S ta te , N o. 13- 06- 00298- C R , 2009 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 3349 ( T ex. A pp. –C orpus C hr i s t i - E di nbur g M ay14, 2009) ( notdes i gnat ed forpubl i cat i on) (Merc ier II

). T h e S tat e f

il ed a p eti ti o n fo r discre ti o n aryrev iew ask ing w h ethe r a h arm anal y s i s i s nece s s aryw hen a tr i al courtfai l s t o gr anta mot i on t o quas h an i ndi ctm entt hat does nott ol l the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . W e gr ant ed the pet i t i on t o det erm i ne w hethert he courtof appe al s err ed i n fai l i ng t o conducta harm anal y s i s . W e w i l l r ever s e.

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY A pp el l ant w as charged w i th b arr at ryand con spi racyt o co m m i tbarr at ry . T he fir st i n d i c t me n twa s r e tu r n e d b yth e g r a n d j u ryo n M a r c h 2 1 , 2 0 0 0 , a n d a l l e g e d th a tth e two c o u n ts o f c o n s p ir a c yto c o m m it b a rr a tr yo c c u rr e d o n o r a b o u t S e p te m b e r 3 0 , 1 9 9 7 . A pp el l ant w as r ei nd i ct ed fo r the sam e off enses on D ecem ber 19, 2001 , and the fir st ind ictm en t w as d ism issed tw o d ay s lat er. I n the s ec o n d ind ictm en t, the o ff en ses w ere out s i de the thr ee- y earl i m i t at i ons per i od, and no t ol l i ng fac t or s w er e i ncl uded. A pp el l ant fi l ed a p retri al app l i cat i on for w ri tof h abeas co rpus seeki ng his rel ease b a s e d o n th e e x p ir a tio n o f th e lim ita tio n s p e ri o d . T h e tr ia l ju d g e d e n ie d th e m o tio n . A f ter th e ju ryw a s s w o rn , A p p e llan t f iled a m o tio n to d ism iss , as k in g th e ju d g e to re c o n s id e r t h e is s u e o f

th e s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s . T h e tr ia l ju d g e a g a in d e n ie d th e m o tio n .Merc ier–Pag e 3

SeeCodeof

Criminal Proc e dureAr

tic le44 .0 1( a), statin gin re le va nt p art that th eStateis 1 e nti tle d toa

pp e a l an o rde r in a

c rimin a l c a seif

theorder: (1 ) dismiss e s a n in dic tment, (2 ) a

rre sts or modifies a judgment, or (3) grants a new trial. All futureref erences to Ar

ticles ref er to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure . A f te r t h e S ta te re s te d , A p p e lla n t a s k e d th e ju d g e to e n te r, o r t o o rd e r t h e ju ry to e n te r, a ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l o r n o t g u ilty o n th e g ro u n d s th a t th e in d ic tm e n t w a s tim e b a rr e d . T he r eques tw as deni ed bythe tr i al j udge. T he def ens e cl os ed w i thoutpr es ent i ng e v id e n c e , a n d th e ju ry f o u n d A p p e lla n t g u ilty o f c o n s p ir a c yto c o m m it b a rr a tr y . A ppel l antfi l ed a mot i on fora new tr i al r ai s i ng m ul t i pl e cl ai m s , i ncl udi ng thatthe evi dence w as l egal l yand fa ctual l yi ns uffi ci entt o s uppor thi s convi ct i on and thatthe pr os ecut i on w as barr ed byl i m i t at i ons . T he tr i al courtgr ant ed the mot i on and ent er ed an or derof ac qui t t al , fi ndi ng A ppel l antnotgui l tyof the cr i m e cha r ged. T he St at e appe al ed, 1 a n d th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls c o n sid e re d w h e th e r th e e v id e n c e w a s le g a llysu f f icie n t to su sta in the convi ct i on. T he courtof appe al s s t at ed: A ft err evi ew i ng al l the evi dence , w e conc l ude thata r at i onal tr i erof fa ct coul d have f

ound bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthe es s ent i al el ement s of the offe ns e. W e conc l ude the evi dence i s l egal l ys uffi ci ent . T hus , even appl y i ng defe r ent i al s t andar ds as w e must , w e conc l ude that , on thi s r ecor d, the tr i al courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n gr ant i ng a new tr i al and vac at i ng the ver di ct on l egal i nsuff

i ci encygroun ds. Merci er I, 164 S. W . 3d at823. T he courtof appe al s r ever s ed the tr i al court ’ s or derand r emanded the ca s e forentr yof j udgm entr efl ect i ng the j ury ’ s ver di ct . O n r emand, the tr ia l c o u rt re d u c e d th e s e n te n c e . A p p e lla n t th e n f ile d a n a p p e a l s e e k in g d is m is s a l. CO URT O F AP PEALSMerc ier–Pag e 4

O n a p p e a l, A p p e llan t ar g u e d th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n s to di s m i s s bas ed on the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . H e cl ai m ed thatbeca us e the s econd i ndi ctm entpl eade d an off ens e out s i de the l i m i t at i ons per i od and di d notpl ead a t ol l i ng pr ovi s i on, the i ndi ctm entw as fat al l ydefe ct i ve and s houl d have be en di s m i s s ed. T he S ta te re s p o n d e d th a t it w a s n o t r e q u ir e d to p le a d to llin g f a c to rs in th e s e c o n d in d ic tm e n t. T h e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls d e ter m in e d th a t T ita v . S ta te , 2 6 7 S . W . 3 d 3 3 ( Te x . Cr i m. A pp. 2008) , w as di r ect l yon poi ntand hel d thats i nce the St at e fa i l ed t o pl ead i t s r el i ance on the t ol l i ng pr ovi s i on i n t he s econd i ndi ctm ent , the tr i al courterr ed i n deny i ng the m ot i on t o di s m i s s . H ow ever , the courtof appe al s di s agr eed w i th T ita r egar di ng w hether th is e rr o r w a s s u b

je c t to a h a rm a n a lysis . T ita hel d thatfai l ur e t o pl ead t ol l i ng fac t s i n the i ndi ctm entw as a def

ectof s ubs t ance and r emanded fora harm anal y s i s underR ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 44. 2( b) . T he courtof appe al s ci t ed ca s es s t at i ng thata def ectof s u b s ta n c e is h a rm f

u l p e r s e o r r e q u ir e s re v e rs a l w ith o u t a s h o w in g o f h a rm . Merc ier II

at * 1 2 - 1 3 . T h e c o u r ta l s o c i t e d Di x a n d Da ws o n , 4 1 T E XAS P RA CT I CE : CR I M I NAL P RA CT I CE AND P RO CE DUR E § 2 0 . 4 2 ( 2 d e d . S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ) , wh i c h s t a t e s , “ An err oneous fai l ur e t o s us t ai n an obj ect i on r ai s i ng a def ectof s ubs t ance appar ent l yr equi r es aut om at i c r ever s al r egar dl es s of w hetherthe appe l l antw as harm ed. ” A ccor di ng t o the c o u rt o f a p p e a ls , T

ita ’ s r emand “cr eat es s ubs t ant i al confus i on. ” Merc ier II at*9. T he c o u rt o f a p p e a ls c o n c lu d e d th a t J a c k so n v . S ta te , 718 S. W . 2d 724 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1 9 8 6 ), is c o n tro lli n g in c a se s o f a d e f e c t o f su b sta n c e a n d p o in ted o u t th a t th e C o u rt inMerc ier–Pag e 5

Jack s on rev erse d a c o n v ict ion b ase d o n a d ef ec t of su b stan ce w ith o u t con d u cti n g a h arm a n a lysis . T h e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls s a id th a t ap p ly in g R u le 4 4 .2 (b ) to d e f e c ts o f su b sta n c e w o u ld r enderC ode of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e A r t i cl e 21. 19 m eani ngl es s beca us e R ul e 44. 2( b) w oul d pr ovi de the s ame r evi ew fordefe ct s of s ubs t ance as fordefe ct s of form . A nd Jack s on sa id th a t th e sta n d a rd f o r d e f e c ts o f f o rm , in w h ich re v e rsa l is a p p ro p ria te o n lyif the def ectpr ej udi ced the def

endant ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , does notappl yt o defe ct s of s u b s ta n c e . Jack

s on , 718 S. W . 2d at725 n. 1. T her efor e, the courtof appe al s det erm i ned th a t ap p ly in g a h a rm a n a ly sis to su b sta n tiv e d e f e c ts in a n in d ictm e n t is in c o n sis ten t w ith Jack s on . B eca us e w e di d notoverrul e Jack s on , the courtof appe al s di s r egar ded T ita ’s r emand fora harm anal y s i s and i ns t ead f ol l ow ed Jack

s on . T he courtof appe al s r ever s ed th e tr ia l c o u rt a n d d is m is s e d th e p ro s e c u tio n . Merc ier II a t * 1 9 . T h e S tat e f

il ed a p eti ti o n fo r discre ti o n aryrev iew ask ing , “Is the tr ial co u rt ’s err oneous fai l ur e t o quas h a cha r gi ng i ns trum entfori t s om i s s i on of l anguage t ol l i ng t he s t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s s u b

j e c tt o a h a r ml e s s - e rr o ra n a l y s i s ?” ARG UM ENTS OF THE PARTI ES T h e S tate sa y s th a t th e trial c o u rt’s e rro r in f a ili n g to q u a sh th e in d ictm e n t is s ubj ectt o a harm anal y s i s underR ul e 44. 2( b) . T he St at e i nfer s thatthe r eas ons forthe di ffe r ence i n hol di ngs i n Jack s on and T

ita ar e the i nt erveni ng deci s i on i n C ai n v. Stat e, 9 4 7 S .W .2 d 2 6 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ), a n d th e p ro m u lg a tio n o f R u le 4 4 .2 (b ). C a inMerc ier–Pag e 6

expl i ci t l ys ai d t hata harm anal y s i s m us tbe conduc t ed foral l buts tructur al err or s , and an ind ictm en t’ s fa il u re to a ll eg e tolli n g fa cts i s n o t struc tural un d er the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s d e f in itio n . Id . a t 2 6 4 . S e e A riz o n a v . Fu lm in a n te , 499 U . S. 279, 310 ( 1991) ( s t at i ng t hat a structural err or i s a “defect affect i ng the fram ew ork w i thin w hich the tr i al proceed s, rathe r th an sim p lyan erro r i n the tri al pro ce ss it self” ). T h e S tat e sa y s the h arm stan d ard fro m R u le 44 . 2 (b) sh o u ld b e a p p li ed . P ri o r t o the p rom u lgation o f R u le 44 . 2 , all erro rs w e re su b jec t to th e sa m e sta n d a rd , an d a n ye rro r re q u ire d re v e rsa l u n les s th e a p p e llate courtdet erm i ned bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe err ordi d notcontr i but e t o the convi ct i on orpuni s hm ent . A ft erR ul e 44. 2, the harm s t andar d us ed depe nds on w hether the err or i s const i tuti on al or non -const i tuti on al . F or r eversal on no n-const i tuti on al err ors, th e e rro r m u st a f

f e c t th e d e f

e n d a n t’s s u b sta n tial rig h ts. T h e S tate a rg u e s th a t C a in ext ends harm anal y s i s t o al l exce ptfors tructur al err or s and thatthe pr opers t andar d for h a rm a n a lysis o f

a n o n -c o n s titu tio n a l d e f e c t o f s u b s ta n c e in a n in d ic tm e n t is R u le 4 4 .2 (b ). Ap p e l l a n ta r g u e s th a tAr t i c l e 2 1 . 0 2 ( 6 ) r e q u i r e s th e f a c e o f th e i n d i c t me n tt o s h o w a tim e th a t is n o t s o re m o te th a t th e p ro s e c u tio n o f th e o f f e n s e is b a rr e d b ylim ita tio n s . A p p e llan t cla im s th a t h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts w e re v io late d a n d th a t th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls w as c o rrect i n rev ersing the tri al co u rtd u e to “ stru ctura l and rev ersible sy stem ic errors af fe cti n g the e n ti re f

ram ew o rk o f th is pro sec u ti o n . ” A p p ell an t st ates tha t th is C o u rt s houl d notappl yR ul e 44. 2( b) t o a pr es erved l i m i t at i ons i s s ue and thatthe St at e for fei t ed a n d w a iv e d th e o p p o rtu n ityto h a v e th is re v iew e d f o r h a rm . A p p e llan t sa y s th a t th e R u leMerc ier–Pag e 7

44. 2( b) di r ect i ons i n T

ita ar e “unc ons t i tut i onal di ctum ” and thatthi s i s fundament al s tru c tu ra l e rr o r t h a t d e f

ie s a n a lysis a n d c a n n e v e r b e p ro v e n h a rm le s s u n d e r R u le 4 4 .2 . A ppel l antar gues thati f the err ori s s ubj ectt o a harm anal y s i s , i ti s cons t i tut i onal err orand mustbe ana l y zed unde rR ul e 44. 2( a) . A ppel l antcl ai m s thatdi s m i s s al w as cert ai n due t o t he s ubs t ant i ve def ecti n the cha r gi ng i ns trum ent , and thi s demonstr at es pr ej udi ce t o hi s due- pr oces s r i ght s and vi ol at es the Separ at i on of Pow er s cl aus e, the due c o u rse o f law , an d e x p o st f

a c to p ro h ib iti o n s. A p p e llan t ar g u e s th a t th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls c a n n o t d e ter m in e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t th e e rro r d id n o t co n trib u te to c o n v ic tio n . A lt ern ati v ely , if th e e rror is no t con sti tuti o n al an d is an aly ze d u n d er R u le 44 . 2 (b), A p p e lla n t s a y s th e e rr o r m u s t b e f o u n d h a rm f

u l b e c a u s e it a f

f e c ts h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . A pp el l ant cl ai m s that the tr i al cou rt ’s fai l ure t o g ranthis pretri al m oti on t o d i sm i ss r es ul t ed i n a vi ol at i on of the fol l ow i ng r i ght s : t o be fr ee f r om pr os ecut i on aft erthe e x p i r a t i o n o f

l i mi t a t i o n s , t o h a v e a s u f f i c i e n ti n d i c t me n t , t o n o tb e c o n v i c t e d o f a c r i me al l eged i n a fa ci al l yt i m e- barr ed i ndi ctm ent , t o pr ocee d as i f no pr os ecut i on had bee n comm ence d, t o be ful l ydi s char ged i f the off ens e w as barr ed byl i m i t at i on befor e another i ndi ctm entcoul d be pr es ent ed, and t o pr ocee d underan amended i ndi ctm ent . H e s t at es that , “D ue t o t he ce r t ai ntyappel l antobt ai ned a c onvi ct i on foran off ens e thatw as l i m i t at i on t i m e- barr ed, the err ori n the i ndi ctm enthad more than a s l i ghti nfl uence on the j ury ’ s ver di ctand thus aff ect ed M er ci er ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s s uch as t o r equi r e di s m i s s al ofMerc ier–Pag e 8

th e in d ic tm e n t a n d th e p ro s e c u tio n .” CAS EL AW T he courtof appe al s r el i ed on Jack s on to c o n c lu d e th a t itw a s n o t n e c e ss a ryto conducta harm anal y s i s . T he i s s ue i n Jack s on w as w hetherthe cha r gi ng i ns trum entw as fundament al l ydefe ct i ve and thus s ubj ectt o a mot i on t o quas h. T he convi ct i on w as r ever s ed bas ed on a de fec tof s ubs t ance i n the i nform at i on, and no harm anal y s i s w as conduct ed. T he C our ti n Jack s on di d notdi s cus s harm anal y s i s , buts i m pl ys t at ed i n a fo o tno te th at i t nee d n o t con ce rn it self w ith rec en t dec isi o n s h o lding that d ef ec ts of fo rm ar e notgr ounds forr ever s al unl es s the def ecti t s el f pr ej udi ced the def endant ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . 718 S. W . 2d at725, ci t i ng A da m s v . S ta te , 707 S. W . 2d 900 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1 9 8 6 ). A deca de l at er , butbefor e R ul e 44. 2( b) beca m e ef fec t i ve, w e dec i ded C ai n v. S ta te . I n C a in , w e d eterm ined that “E x ce p t fo r ce rt ain f ed era l con sti tuti o n al errors lab e led b yth e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt a s ‘s tru c tu ra l,’ n o e rro r, w h e th e r it re late s to ju risd ictio n , v o lu n tar in e ss o f a p lea , o r a n yo th e r m a n d a to ryre q u ire m e n t, i s c a teg o ric a lly i m m une t o a harm l es s err oranal y s i s . ” 947 S. W . 2d at264. St ructur al err or s thatar e not s ubj ectt o a harm anal y s i s i ncl ude t ot al depr i vat i on of the r i ghtt o couns el attr i al , a j udge w ho i s noti m part i al , unl aw ful excl us i on of m ember s of the def endant ’ s r ace fr om the g ra n d ju ry, th e ri g h t to s e lf -r e p re s e n ta tio n a t tr ia l, a n d th e ri g h t to a p u b lic tr ia l. A r iz ona v . Fu lm in a n te , 499 U . S. at309- 10. T he harm s t andar d w e us ed i n C a in w as R ul e ofMerc ier–Pag e 9

A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 81( b) ( 2) . H ow ever , eff ect i ve Sept ember1, 1997 ( l es s than thr ee m o n ths a fter C a in w a s h a n d e d d o w n ), R u le s 8 0 (d ), 8 1 , a n d 8 3 w e re m e rg e d in to R u le 4 4 . A tthatpoi nt , the s t andar d fornon- cons t i tut i onal err or s beca m e R ul e 44. 2( b) , w hi ch s t at es , “A nyot hererr or , defe ct , i r r egul ar i ty , orvar i ance thatdoes notaff ects ubs t ant i al ri g h ts m u s t b e d is re g a rd e d .” T he fa ct s i n T

ita ar e verys i m i l art o thos e i n the ca s e bef or e us . T i t a fi l ed a pr etr i al m ot i on t o di s m i s s hi s i ndi ctm enton the gr ounds thati tw as barr ed bythe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . T he St at e ar gued thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons w as t ol l ed bypr evi ous i ndi ctm ent s . T he tr i al courtdeni ed the appe l l ant ’ s m ot i on as w el l as hi s m ot i ons for i ns truct ed ver di ctdur i ng the tr i al . T he courtof appe al s aff i r m ed the tr i al court , hol di ng thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons w as a def ens e thatthe St at e di d nothave t o negat e i n the i ndi ctm ent . 267 S. W . 3d at36. W e di s agr eed a nd det erm i ned thatthe St at e w as r equi r ed to p le a d to llin g f

a c ts in th e in d ic tm e n t in o rd e r t o a v o id d is m is s a l. Id . at38. W e r ever s ed and, w i thoutaddr es s i ng the i s s ue of ha r m our s el ves , r emanded the ca s e t o the courtof ap p ea ls fo r a h arm an aly sis un d er R u le 44 . 2 (b). R ece nt l y , i n Sm ith v . S ta te , w e conc l uded thatthe fa i l ur e t o al l ege i n the i ndi ctm ent act s cons t i tut i ng r eckl es s nes s w as a def ectof s ubs t ance s i nce r eckl es s nes s w as an el ement of the off

ens e cha r ged. C i t i ng T

ita , w e stated , “T h o u g h w e h av e intim ated that a h arm anal y s i s w oul d appl yt o s ubs t ance defe ct s , w e have nevers quar el yaddr es s ed the i s s ue. ” W e re m a n d e d th e c a se to th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls to d e ter m in e w h a t, i f a n y , h a rm a n a ly sisMerc ier–Pag e 10

a p p lie s . Sm ith , 3 0 9 S .W .3 d 1 0 , 1 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 1 0 ). A N A L Y S IS A tthe t i m e of ourhol di ng i n Sm ith , w e h a d n o t y e t b e e n d ire c tlyc a lled u p o n to d e t e r mi n e wh e th e ra d e f e c to f s u b s t a n c e i s s u b

j e c tt o a h a r m a n a l y s i s . F o rth i s r e a s o n , we r emanded Sm ith f

o rth e c o u r to f

a p p e a l s t o c o n s i d e rth i s i s s u e . Ho we v e r , b e c a u s e we g ra n ted th e re v iew b e f

o re u s f o r th e e x p re ss p u rp o se o f a n sw e rin g th is q u e stio n , w e w ill addr es s i ther e. C o d e o f C rim in a l P ro c e d u re A rticle 2 1 .0 2 (6 ) re q u ire s th a t an in d ictm e n t in d ica te on i t s fac e thata pr os ecut i on ther eunderi s notbarr ed bythe appl i cabl e s t atut e of lim itatio n s. W e a g re e w ith th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls th a t th e in d ictm e n t in th is c a se is defe ct i ve and thatthe tr i al courterr ed i n r efus i ng t o gr antA ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on t o quas h t he in d ic tm e n t. W e a ls o a g re e th a t th is is a d e f e c t o f s u b s ta n c e . See C ode of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e A r t i cl e 27. 08( 2) ( s t at i ng thati ti s an exc ept i on t o the s ubs t ance of an i ndi ctm enti f “i tappea r s fr om the fa ce ther eof thata pr os ecut i on forthe off ens e i s barr ed b ya lap se o f

tim e ” ); cf

. A r t i cl e 27. 09 ( l i s t i ng defe ct s of form i n an i ndi ctm entor inf o rm ati o n ). W e di s agr ee w i th t he courtof appe al s ’ s deci s i on t o i gnor e T ita ’s rem an d fo r a h a rm a n a ly sis . T h e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls w a s c o rre c t th a t T ita is directl yo n p o int an d the c o u rt of appe al s s houl d have unde r s t ood fr om ourr emand i n T ita thata harm anal y s i s under R ul e 44. 2( b) appl i es t o t hi s cas e as w el l . T he courtof appe al s over l ooked C a in ’ s hol di ngMerc ier–Pag e 11

that o n lyerro rs l ab eled as struc tural bythe S u p rem e C o u rtare im m u n e f rom a h arm an aly sis an d d isr eg ard ed the f ac t th at R u le 44 . 2 (b) w as p rom u lgated af ter Jack s on and C a in t o d eal w i th n on -const i tuti on al err ors. W e al s o di s agr ee w i th t he courtof appe al s thatanal y zi ng harm fr om a def ectof s ubs t ance underR ul e 44. 2( b) r ender s the ana l y s i s of def ect s of form i n A r t i cl e 21. 19 m eani ngl es s . A r t i cl e 21. 19 s t at es that“A n i ndi ctm ents hal l notbe hel d i ns uffi ci ent , nor s hal l the tr i al , j udgm entorot herpr ocee di ngs ther eon be a ffe ct ed, byr eas on of anydefe ct of form w hi ch does notpr ej udi ce the s ubs t ant i al r i ght s of the def endant . ” Ther efor e, unl es s pr ocee di ng underthe i ndi ctm entvi ol at es the def endant ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , the tr i al courtdoes noterrbyal l ow i ng the tr i al t o go on. T he purpos e of Rul e 44. 2( b) i s for appel l at e court s t o det erm i ne w hethera non- cons t i tut i onal err orthatoccurr ed atthe tr i al a f f e c ted th e d e f

e n d a n t’s s u b sta n tial rig h ts, a n d if it d id , the n th e e rro r is re v e rsib le. R u le 44. 2 does notcons i derw hetherthe err ori s a def ectof form ora def

ectof s ubs t ance ; rathe r i t diffe ren ti ates b etw ee n co n sti tuti o n al error a n d o ther e rrors. T h u s, w h il e the re m aybe s om e over l ap betw een the tw o pr ovi s i ons , A r t i cl e 21. 19 i s s peci fi c t o defe ct s of form and appl i es befor e, dur i ng, oraft erthe tr i al , w hi l e R ul e 44. 2( b) deal s w i th other e rro r in g e n e ra l, i n c lu d in g d e f e c ts o f su b sta n c e , b u t o n lya t th e a p p e llate lev e l. A rticle 2 7 .0 9 o u tli n e s th e o n lyc o m p lain ts a b o u t th e f o rm o f th e in d ictm e n t th a t a defe ndantm ayr ai s e, butunl es s thos e def ect s of form pr ej udi ce hi s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , t he in d ictm e n t w ill b e d e e m e d su f f icie n t u n d e r A rticle 2 1 .1 9 a n d th e p ro se c u tio n w illMerc ier–Pag e 12

cont i nue. U nderA r t i cl e 27. 08, a def endantm ayr ai s e compl ai nt s aboutthe s ubs t ance of th e in d ic tm e n t, a n d if

th o s e d e f

e c ts a re p re s e n t, th e n th e in d ic tm e n t s h o u ld b e d is m is s e d . H ow ever , i f the tr i al courterr s i n fai l i ng t o di s m i s s the i ndi ctm ent , then thaterr orw i l l be s ubj ectt o a harm anal y s i s underR ul e 44. 2. CO NC L US I ON A harm anal y s i s underR ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 44. 2( b) i s nece s s aryw hen an i ndi ctm enti s defe ct i ve due t o t he l ack of a t ol l i ng pr ovi s i on. W e r ever s e the courtof app eal s and rem and for a harm analy si s.

M ey ers , J.

D el i ver ed: O ct ober6, 2010 P ub l i sh