### NUM BER 13-06- 319- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG
FR A NC ISCO A GUIL A R, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 31stD istrict Co urt of T rav is C ou nty , T exas 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , R o d rig u ez , a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez App ellant , Francisco Aguilar, w as cha rg ed b y indictm entw ith aggravated a s s a u lt
w it h a d eadl y

w eapo n on a publ icse rv ant. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 22. 02( b) (2 )( B) (Verno n Sup p 20 07). T he jury f oun d app ellantguilty and se nte nced h im to twelv e y ears'
c o n f i n e m e n tin t h e T e xa s De p a rt m e n to f Cr im in a l J u s t ic e – I n s t it u t io n a l D ivi s io n
. By two2

poi nts of er ro r, Ag uil ar co ntends thatthe tr ial c our t' s c harg e v iol ated his r ig ht t o due proce ss u n d e r the F our teent h Amendmentand sec ti ons 38.04 and 38. 05 of the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re
. See U .S. C ON ST
. a me n d X IV, § 1; T E X C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. ar ts

. 38 .0 4, 3 8. 05 ( Ve r no n 19 79 )

. W e affi r m. I. Bac kg ro und Dur ing Ag uil ar 's t ri al, M ic hael M cGo ug h tes ti fied th at A g uil ar harass ed hi m and a g ro up of col lea g ues. After M cGo ug h tol d Officers C ar los Sal div ar and Stev e Bol ine about the i nci dent, Off ic er Sal div ar approache d Ag uil ar to q uest ion him. Acc ordin g to M cGo ug h, the o ff ic ers w er e w ear ing thei r uni forms and badg es. Officer Sal div ar tes ti fied th at A g uil ar smel led of alc ohol and abr uptl y "took a sw ing " at him. A str ug g le ensue d. Officer Sal div ar further tes ti fied th at A g uil ar

st ru ck hi m r epeated ly

and cuthi m w it h a k nife th at A g uil ar had been hol din g under his sl eev e. Ag uil ar tes ti fied th at he had tak en th e k nife outto peel an
oran g e an d th at "when I s aw t he u ni for m o f t he p ol i c e I th ou g hth e w as g oi ng t o as kme
s o m e t h in g, " b u t in s t e a d , O f f ic e r Sa ld iva r " c a m e a t [ h im ] , " " s wu n g, " a n d h it h im in t h e e ye
a re a w it h o u t a sk in g an y q u e st io n s. Agu ila r cla im e d th a t th e o f f ice rs be a t him eve n th o u gh he di d notr esi st ar re st. II. St andard of Re v iew An app ell ate c our

t' s "first duty " i n anal y z ing a j ur y charg e iss ue is "to de ci de w hether
e rro r ex is ts. " Ngov. Sta te , 1 7 5 S

. W

. 3 d 7 3 8 , 7 4 3 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p
. 2 0 0 5 )

. A l t h o ug h a harm less-error analysis app lies "to a w ide range of errors" and "m ost con stitutio nal errors can b e ha rmless," the Su prem e Court ha s foun d tha t a f e w c e rt ain errors "de f y ana ly sis by ' har mles s- er ro r' standards. " Ar izona v . Fulm ina nte , 499 U .S. 279, 306 ( 1991) ; see United S tates

v. Gonz ale z-L opez , 548 U .S. 140 , __, 126 S. Ct . 255 7, 25 64 ( 2006) ( li sti ng3

er ro rs the Supreme Cour t has deter mined to b e s tr uct ur al and notsu bje ct to ha rml ess -e rror
re v iew ); see als o Johnso n v . U nited St ates , 520 U .S. 461, 468- 6 9 ( 1 9 9 7 ) ( opi nin g that str uct ural er ro r has been found "on ly i n a v er y l imi ted c las s o f cases "). If error r eq uir ing har mles s- er ro r anal y si s i s found, the deg re e of har m nece ss ar y for
re v ersal depend s o n w hether the appel lan t preser

v ed th e er ro r by

object ion

. Olivas v. State , 202 S.W .3d 1 37, 1 44 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006) ; see Al m anza v . St ate , 686 S.W .2d 157,171 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1985) (o p. on re h'g ). If the de fendant proper ly obj ect ed to the
errone ous jury charge, reversal i s required if we f ind "so me h arm" t o the def end ant 's ri ghts. Ol iv as , 202 S.W .3d a t 1 4 4 ; Ngo , 175 S.W .3d a t 743 ; A l m a n za , 686 S.W .2d a t 171

. How ever, if the def end ant did not objector stated thathe ha s no o bjectio n to th e jury charg e, w e may

onl y r ev erse if the re cord s how s e g re g iou s h ar m to t he defendant. Ol iv as , 202 S.W .3d a t 144 ; Ngo , 175 S.W .3d a t 743 -4 4; A l m a n za , 686 S.W .2d a t 171

. In mak ing this de term inati o n, "t he a ctua l degree of harm must be assa y ed in light of the en tire jury
c h a rg e , t h e st a t e o f

t h e e vid e n c e , in c lu d in g t h e c o n t e s t e d is s u e s a n d we ig h to f p ro b a t ive
ev ide nce, the arg ument of c ounse l and any othe r re lev ant i nformati on rev eal e d by the
re cord of the tr ial as a w hol e." A l m a n za , 686 S.W .2d a t 17 1 ; see Gar re tt v. State , 159 S.W .3d 7 17, 7 19- 21 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 05) , aff'd , 220 S.W .3d 9 26 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007) ( findi ng no e g re g iou s h ar m in jury ch arg e bec ause "the record and sta tements of
couns el [di d] not indi cat e that [d efendant's ] aw ar eness thatC omplai nant w as a firefig hter
w as a con teste d issue" ). Jury charge error causes egregious harm to the def end ant if it af fects th e v erybasis of

the case , dep riv es the def end anto f a va lu a b le rig ht, o r v itally aff ect s a defensi v e the or y . Hutch v. State , 922 S.W .2d 166, 171 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1996) (plurality opin ion).A pe rso n c om m i t s an as s au l t i f t he pe rso n " i nten t i on al l y , k no w i ng l y , or rec k l es s l y ca us es bo di l y i njury 1 t o an ot her , . . . i nt ent i onal l y or k nowi ngl y t hr eat ens anot her wi t h i m m i nent bod i l y i nj ur y , . . . or i nt ent i onal l y or k nowi ngl y cause s t he phy si cal cont act wi t h anot her when t he per son k nows or shou l d r easona bl y bel i ev e t hat th e o th e r w i l l r e g a rd th e c o n ta c t a s o ff e n s i v e o r p ro v o c a ti v e ." T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 2 2.01 (Ve rno n 1 97 9).
4 III

. Appl ic abl e Law A pers on commits an ag g ra v ated ass aul t of a publi c s er

v ant i f the person commi ts
an as saul t as defined in sec ti on 22. 01 and the o ff ense is co mmitt ed "ag ain st a person the 1 act or know s is a publ ic ser v ant w hil e the publ ic ser v ant is law

fully dis charg ing an of

f ici al duty as a pu bli c s er

v ant." T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 22. 02(b )(2)(B) (Verno n Sup p. 20 07). Ag g ra v ated ass aul t i s a se cond- deg re e felony , unl ess i t is commi tted ag ain st an i ndi v idu al the actor kno w s is a public serv ant w ho is lawf ully discha rg ing his dut ies, in w hich case it i s a fi rs t
- d e g r e e fe l o ny
. Id. A publ icse rv ant i s d efined as "a pe rs on el ect ed, s ele cte d, appoi nted, empl oy ed, o r other w is e des ig nated as one of the follo w ing , ev en if he has not y et q ual ified for o ff ic e or as sumed his duti es: ( A) an o ff ic er , empl oy ee, o r a gent of g ov er nment." Id. § 1.07 (a)(41) (Vernon Supp . 200 7). IV. D is cus si on A. Due Proce ss By hi s first is sue, Ag uil ar arg ues that the t ri al cour t v iol ated ar

ti cl e 38. 05 of the T exas Code of

Cri min al Proced ure by imp ermissibly instruct ing th e jury o n an u ltima te fact in dis pute—that Off ic er Sal div ar w as a publ icse rv ant. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 38.05 (V er non 1979). Ar ti cl e 38. 05 prov ide s t hat "[ i] n r uli ng upon the a dmis si bil it y of
ev ide nce, the jud g e s hal l not d is cus s o r comment on th e w eig ht of the same or i ts bear ing i n t h e c a s e. .
. ." Id. The j ur y ch arg e i ncl uded t he foll ow ing : "Y ou are i nst ru cte d tha t5

Car los Sal div ar is a publ ic ser v ant." Ag uil ar compl ain s that thi s l ang uag e v iol ated his due proces s r ig hts bec ause itw as a c omment on the w eig ht of t he ev ide nce pr ior to the v erdic t. "A c harg e tha t as sumes t h e t ruth of a c ontrov erted i ss ue i s a co mment on the
w eig ht of the ev ide nce and i s e rroneous ." W haley v. State , 71 7 S. W .2 d 26 , 32 ( Tex

. C r i m. App . 198 6). At tria l, h o we ver, Aguilar never dispu ted thatOf f icer Saldivar w as a po lice of f icer. Moreov er, und er section 1.02 (41)(A) of the T exas Pena l Code, a p olice of f icer is defined a s a "publ icse rv ant." T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 1

. 0 7 ( Verno n Sup p. 20 07). Therefore, bec ause the j ur y ch arg e di d notco mment on a c ontrov erted i ss ue, i t w as not
er ro r for th e tr ial co urt t o i ncl ude t he i nst ru ction in the j ur y ch arg e. See Whaley, 717 S.W .2d a t 32. Rel y ing on In re W

inship , 397 U.S. 358 (1970 ), Aguilar also con ten ds in his f irst is sue that the c omplai ned- of j ur y ins tr uct ion re li ev ed th e St ate o f prov ing an e lementof the of fense beyond a rea sona ble do ubt , thu s v iolating his due process rights, and theref ore the cas e shoul d be re v ersed and re manded w it hout a har m anal y si s. How e ver, ev en
ass uming er ro r, w e di sag re e and conc lud e tha t a har mles s e rror anal y si s i s a ppropr iat e. In Johns on v

. U nited St ates , t he U nit ed S ta te s S upr eme C our t ex pla ine d tha t improper ly

inst ru cti ng the jur

y on an element of the offense i s s ubj ectto a har mles s- er ro r anal y si s. 520 U. S. a t 468 ; see Neder v. U nited St ates , 527 U.S. 1, 8 (199 9) (" W e h a ve of ten app lied ha rmless-error ana ly sis to cases involv ing i mp rope r instructions on a single ele ment of

the off ense. "). The Tex as Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls has al so decr ied a t re nd "'to label certa in errors 'f und am ent al' then auto ma tically rev erse con v ictions w ithou t regard to t he nat ur e and har m of the er ro r in the c ase. '" Hawk ins v. Sta te , 13 5 S .W .3 d 7 2 , 82 (T e x. Crim . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) (qu o ti n g A l m a n za , 686 S.W .2d a t 172 -7 3)

. Al so, "as ide from6

federal co nst it uti onal er ro rs l abel ed by the Supreme C our

t as str uct ur al, no er ro r is i mmune from a ha rm anal y si s." Id. The S upr eme Cour t has i denti fied th e foll ow ing as st ru ctu ra l
er ro rs : compl ete d eni al of couns el; bia sed tr ial jud g e; raci al dis cr imi nati on i n s ele cti on of gr a n d ju ry; d e n ia l o f

se lf -r e p re s e n t a t io n a tt ri a l; d e n ia l o f p u b li ct ri a l; a n d d e fe c t ive
re asona ble -d oubt ins tr uct ion

. Gonz ale z-L opez , 548 U .S. 140, __, 1 26 S. Ct . at2564 ; Neder , 527 U.S. at 8; Johns on , 520 U.S. at 46 8 (stating tha t impro perly instructin g the jury
on an ele ment of

the off ense is subjec t to harmle ss -e rror anal y si s) ; see Cl

ar k v . St ate , 878 S.W .2d 2 24, 2 26 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1994, no pet .) ( appl y ing har mles s e rror anal y si s t o
er ro r under

ar ti cl e 38. 05) ; Tenn is on v . St ate , 814 S.W .2d 4 84, 4 86 ( Tex . Ap p.–W aco 1991, no pet .) ( same)

. Ag uil ar 's co mplai nts are not am ong the st ru ctu ra l er ro rs l is ted. Ther efore,
w e appl y the A l m a n za har m anal y si s. See 686 S.W .2d at 171. Becaus e Ag uil ar di d not obje c t to the jury

charge, w e mu st det ermin e w het her the error, if an y , cause d him eg re g iou s harm. See O li vas , 202 S.W .3d a t 144 ; Ngo , 175 S.W .3d a t 743 -4 4; A l m a n za , 686 S. W .2d a t 171

. Beca use w e hav e det er mined that the j ur y w as not i mpermi ss ibl y i nst ru cte d on an
u lt im a t e fa c tin d is p u t e u n d e r 3 8

. 0 5 a n d t h a t we m u s ta p p ly Alm anza'shar m anal y si s e v en if the compl ain ed- of ins tr uct ion w as er ro r, w e ov er ru le Ag uil ar 's first is sue. B. Egreg ious Harm In his secon d issue, Aguilar argues tha t the trial court's charge error result e d in egregi ous h arm u nde r A l m a n za
. S e e A l

m a n za , 686 S.W .2d a t 171

. Ass uming w it hout deci din g there w as jur

y charg e er ro r, w e det er mine eg re g iou s h ar m by first cons ide ri ng the all eg ed er ro r in li g ht of the tot ali ty of the c harg e. See A l

m a n za , 686 S.W .2d at 171. The ju ry c h a rge ac curatel y des cr ibe d the rele v ant l aw and the e lement s o f f irst deg re eT he ch ar ge i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat 2 [a ] p e r s o n c o m m its th e o ff e n s e o fa g g r a v a te d a s s a u l t o n a p u b lic s e r v a n t w ith a d e a d ly weapon, i fhe com m i t s t he off ense ofassaul t , as her ei n def i ned, and he uses o r exhi bi t s a deadl y weapon dur i ng t he com m i ssi on of t he off ense when he k nows t ha t t he pe rson a s s a u lte d is a p u b lic s e r v a n t w h ile t h e p u b lic s e r v a n t is la w f u lly d is c h a r g in g a n o ff ic ia l d u ty. T he ch ar ge i nst r uct ed t he j ur y as f ol l ows: 3 N ow bear i ng i n m i nd the fo reg oi ng i nst r uct i ons, i fy ou b el i ev e f r om t he e v i dence bey ond a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t, F r a n c is c o A g u i l a r
. . . d id th e n a n d th e r e in te n tio n a lly and k nowi ngl y t hr eat en Car l os Sal di v ar wi t h i m m i nent bod i l y i nj ur y and di d t hen and t her e use or exhi bi t a deadl y weapon , t o- wi t : a k ni f e, dur i ng t he com m i ssi on of sai d assaul t , and t he s a id F r a n c i s c o A g u ila r d id th e n a n d th e r e k n o w th a t s a id C a r lo s S a ld iv a r w a s a p u b lic s e r v a n t, to
- w it: a P e a c e O ff ic e r , a n d t h a t th e s a id C a r lo s S a ld iv a r w a s th e n a n d th e r e la w f u lly di schar gi ng a n off i ci al dut y t o- wi t : at t em pt i ng t o det ai n or ar r est t he d ef endan t , y ou wi l l f i nd t he d ef endan t gui l t y of the o ffen se of agg r av at ed a ssaul t of a peace off i cer and so say by yo u r v e r d ic t, b u t i f yo u d o n o t s o b e l i e v e , o r i f yo u h a v e re a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h e re o f, y o u w ill a c q u i t t h e d e fe n d a n t o f t h e o ff e n s e o f a g g ra v a te d a s s a u l t o f a p e a c e o ff i c e r a n d p ro c e e d to c o n s i d e r w h e th e r th e d e fe n d a n t i s g u i l ty o f th e l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o ff e n s e o f re s i s ti n g a rr e s t.
7 ag g ra v ated ass aul t of a pu bli c s er v ant, inc lud ing the mens rea c omponent: that the appel lan t k new

thatOfficer

Sal div ar w as a publi c s er

v ant. The ap pli cat ion parag ra ph of 2 the j ur y ch arg e i nst ru cte d the j ur y thati t had to find the ele ments of t he off ense bey ond a
re asona ble doubt

. The charg e f urther i nst ru cte d the j ur

y thati t c oul d presume that Ag uil ar 3 k n e w Of f ic e r S a ld iva r wa s a p u b li cse rva n tif t h e " p u b li cse rva n twa s we a ri n g a d is t in c t ive unifor m o r badge indica ting his emp loymentas a pub lic serv ant ." How ever, it also ins tr uct ed th e j ur

y "thatfacts g ivin g ri se t o the presumpt ion mustbe p ro v en bey ond a
re asona ble doubt ," and "ev en th oug h the j ur y may find t he ex is tenc e of suc h el ement, the state must prove bey ond a reason able dou bt ea ch of t h e o t h er elem ent s of

the of fense charged. " Th erefo r e, t he j ur y c ou l d ha v e de te r mi ne d th atO ffic er S al di v ar w as a p ub lic
ser v ant, but t hat A g uil ar

w as not a w ar e of it

. Next, w e mustconsi der the sta te of

the ev ide nce and det er mine w hether the all eg ed jur y charg e error

rel ated to a cont est ed i ss ue. See Hutch , 922 S.W .2d a t 173 ; A l m a n za , 686 S. W .2d a t 171

. After re v iew ing the re cord, w e concl ude that O ff ic er Sal div ar 's st atus8

as a po lice of

f icer w as no t in disput e. Aguilar's t heo ry of def ense w as tha t the of f icers, inc lud ing Officer

Sal div ar , ov er re act ed and created the stor y abouthi m in order

"to cov er the mse lv es." Ag uilar's coun sel referred to Of f icer Saldivar a s " O f

f icer" w hile crossexaminin g Of

f icer Saldivar a n d w hen q uest ioning oth er w itnesse s. During direct
ex aminat ion , Ag uil ar

tes ti fied th at he saw

Of ficer Saldi v ar 's uniform. He re ferr ed to Officer Sal div ar as "the pol ic e" and "an officer ." Throug hout cl osi ng arg ument, Ag uil ar 's co unsel
re ferr ed to Officer

Sal div ar as an "o ff ic er ." The Stat e al so pr esent ed probative e vidence, t he s uff ic ien cy of w hic h i s n ot cont est ed on appeal , to the jur y that Of ficer Saldi v ar w as a poli ce off ic er . Off ic er Sal div ar tes ti fied th at he w as on dut y w hen he encou ntered Ag uil ar
. Tw o of the Stat e's w it ness es and Ag uil ar

tes ti fied th at O ff ic er

Sal div ar w as w ear ing h is p o lic e uni form and a badg e. Of f icer Saldivar w ore hi s u n if o rm a nd h is badge w hen he test if ied atAguilar's trial. Moreo v er , sec ti on 1.07( 41) (A ) defines a pol ic e off ic er as a "publ ic ser v ant." T EX
. P ENAL C OD E A NN . § 1.0 7(a)(41) (Verno n Sup p. 20 07). T here fore, th e jury co uld ha v e af

f irmatively foun d tha t Of

f icer Saldivar w as a pub lic servant w ithou t the trial court's instruction beca use th e fa ctw a s u n co n te st e d an d th e evid e n ce su p p o rt e d th a t f in d in g. Fi nal ly , w e rev iew

counsel 's clos ing arg uments

. S e e A l m a n za , 686 S.W .2d a t 171

. Defense co unse l referr ed to Officer Sal div ar

as "off ic er " and "Off ic er Sal div ar " dur ing cl osi ng arg ument. H e as ked the j ur y , "So i t i s not a matt er of do y ou bel iev e [A g uil ar] or do y ou b e l i e v e t h e o ffi c e rs
. . . . Th e S t a t e i s h e r e a n d r e q u i r e d t o p ro v e t h a t h e ' s g uil ty bey ond a re asona ble doubt. . ." Agui lar 's counsel arg ued that the St ate h ad to prov e tha t Aguilar "inten tiona lly

and knowi ngly

threat en[ ed] t he o f

f icer. . . . W as the of

f icer lawf ully9

d isc h a rgin g an o ff ic ial duty ?" H e the n as ked the j ur y , "C an a pol ic e off ic er prov oke a si tuati on and then hid e behi nd hi s b adg e and make t he one he prov oked a felon?" Al thoug h t h e t r i a l c o u rt ' s c h a rg e i n c l u d e d t h e c o mp l a i n e d
- o f i n s t r u c t i o n , i tw as other w is e c or re ct and proper ly i nst ru cte d tha t t he St ate h ad th e burden of prov ing bey ond
a reason abl e doubtal l of the element s of the off ense. The ev ide nce ind is putabl y sh ow ed that Off ic er

Sal div ar w as a po lic e o ff ic er
. See G ar re tt , 159 S.W .3d at 719 -21. A po lice off ic er i s i ncl uded i n the penal co de's defini ti on of a publ icse rv ant. See T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN . § 1.07. Agu ilar 's tes ti mony and arg uments present ed th e pos it ion thatOfficer Sald iv ar w as a po lice of f icer w ho a cted inapp ropriate ly. T h e re fore, ba sed o n the jury charg e as a w hol e and the e nti re r ecord i n thi s c ase, w e c oncl u d e t h e r e co rd does not show eg re g iou s h ar m. See O li vas , 202 S.W .3d a t 144

. Ag uil ar w as not d eni ed a fair

and impar ti al tr i al

. The c ha rg e er ror , i f an y , di d no t affec t th e v er y fou nd at i on or ba s i s of his
cas e, de pr iv e hi m a v alu abl e r ig ht, or si g nific antl y

aff ecthi s d efensiv e the or y thatOfficer Sal div ar att ack ed hi m. See Hutch , 922 S.W .2d a t 171

. W e ov er ru le A gui lar' s s econd is sue. V. Con cl usi on W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 1 7th d ay

of Apr il , 200 8.