Court Opinion

ID: 9776976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:50:35.727613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:45.754928
License: Public Domain

HEDGES,
Justice, concurring.
I concur with the majority’s result, but I write separately to conduct a harm analysis.
The majority holds that the trial court erred in refusing a charge on whether the appellant’s conduct was voluntary and- then reverses without a harm analysis. I would conduct such an analysis because without it we have fashioned a per se harmful error rule that I believe is unwarranted.
In Butler v. State, 981 S.W.2d 849, 857 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.], pet. filed), we found error when the trial court denied a charge on the voluntariness of the defendant’s conduct in shooting the decedent. Conducting a harm analysis, we found no harm because the charge authorized the jury to convict on either of two alternate theories *684of the cause of death, shooting and bludgeoning. The voluntariness instruction related only to the shooting theory, leaving the bludgeoning theory a proper consideration for the jury.
Justice Andell dissented on the basis that a harm analysis was improper, citing Brown v. State, 955 S.W.2d 276, 280 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). While it is true that the Brown court did not specifically conduct a harm analysis, the court did not announce a rule of per se harm when a voluntariness instruction is improperly denied. To imply such a rule in Brown sets a dangerous precedent and would have led to an absurd result in Butler.
Just because harm is evident, as it is here, does not absolve us from conducting the analysis nonetheless. Too often we neglect a harm analysis because the outcome is predetermined by the force of the record. I believe that such practice is a mistake and can lead to per se harm rules no one really intended. Having explained my reasoning, I now conduct a harm analysis.
Because the appellant properly preserved error with an objection to the charge, we will reverse only “as long as the error is not harmless.” Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). The presence of any harm, regardless of degree, that results from preserved error is sufficient to require reversal of the conviction. Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348, 351 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). When conducting a harm analysis, we consider the following factors: (1) the charge itself; (2) the state of the evidence, including contested issues and the weight of probative evidence; (3) arguments of counsel; and (4) any other relevant information revealed by the record of the trial as a whole. Bailey v. State, 867 S.W.2d 42, 43 (Tex.Crim.App.1993).
The appellant’s defense relied on his assertion that the gun accidently discharged. During closing arguments, defense counsel asserted the appellant did not intentionally pull the trigger and the shooting was an accident. Defense counsel told the jury “that what it narrows down to in this case is whether or not Mr. Payne intended to shoot that gun, whether he knowingly shot that gun at Michael Moore.... ”
The jury charge tracked the Penal Code provisions regarding self-defense, use of deadly force, and defense of third persons. See Tex.Pen.Code §§ 9.31, 9.32, 9.33. The application paragraph applied the law of self-defense, use of deadly force, and defense of third persons to the facts. Although the evidence raised the issue of voluntariness, the jury was not given the opportunity to reach a finding of accidental or involuntary shooting. See Butler, at 857. Accordingly, the appellant was harmed by the error.