Court Opinion

ID: 9678064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:09:48.310446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:01.634375
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
dissenting.
The reason for the decision of the Fort Worth Court of Appeals, as well in its conclusion as in its findings, is stated thusly:
“In this case, the court instructed the jury that ‘suitable forms for your verdict are hereto attached,’ and the only forms provided found the defendant guilty. Such action in effect amounted to an instruction by the court to find Ber-ghahn guilty. The error is fundamental and requires that the case be reversed and remanded for a new trial.”1 Berghahn v. State, 660 S.W.2d 877 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 1983).
*702When this Court grants a petition for discretionary review, it is to review the “decision” of a court of appeals, Article 44.01 and Article 44.45(a) and (b); which is to say, to review “the reason for such decision,” Article 44.24(c).2 Indeed, that is precisely what the State identified in the two grounds it presented for review. Yet, a majority of this Court simply will not address the reason for the decision given by the court of appeals.
The court of appeals was well aware that appellant had not objected to failure to include a verdict form for “not guilty.” Not only does the record reflect lack of an objection, but also an amicus curiae brief flatly conceded that an objection had not been made. That was the very reason appellant and amicus curiae had to resort to a claim that fundamental error had been committed by the trial court in submitting a jury charge without a verdict form for finding appellant “not guilty.” And the authorities cited and discussed, albeit from other jurisdictions, support their contention and the reason given by the court of appeals for its decision.
On original submission this Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals on a dual basis: failure of appellant to object to absence of a “not guilty” verdict form, under Bolden v. State, 489 S.W.2d 330 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); counsel for appellant “supervised the alteration of the verdict form page” and thus was in no position to complain, under Cadd v. State, 587 S.W.2d 786, 741 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). Neither confronts the reason given by the court of appeals for its decision.
Now on rehearing, since not factually supported in the record and diametrically contrary to an express finding by the trial court that such omission was a clerical error, this Court retreats from the latter position. However, a majority adheres to one portion of Bolden, supra, ignoring that the Court did go on and directly treat the effect of the verdict form that was attached to the charge of the trial court, concluded that “the jury was not misled by the form submitted,” and further concluded that “no harm or reversible error has been shown,” in that:
“In the present case a form of not guilty, although not a proper one, was submitted and if the foreman had signed that form and it had been accepted by the court, the appellant would have been acquitted.” Id., at 302.
So what Judge Douglas and the majority in Bolden really held is that the circumstances did not present fundamental error. Bolden is inapposite; it will not justify what the majority does today.
Because the majority would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals without even considering the issues presented to and determined by that court, and now presented to this Court for review, I respectfully dissent.
MILLER, J., joins.

. All emphasis is supplied throughout by the writer of this opinion unless otherwise indicated.

. All references are to articles in V.A.C.C.P. unless otherwise indicated.