Court Opinion

ID: 9690558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:22:59.235411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:59.349153
License: Public Domain

WOMACK, J.,
filed a concurring opinion in which JOHNSON, J., joined.
I join the judgment of the Court and, except as to Point of Error Ten, its opinion. I agree that the trial court erred when it defined “knowingly” in terms of the nature of conduct, and that the error was not objected to, and that it does not require reversal. I do not subscribe to the statement that “a knowing murder under 19.02(b)(1) is a result-of-conduct offense which by definition is also a nature-of-conduct offense” (ante at 640). And I think we should decide the question of *645harm by doing more than looking at the statutes. See Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Cr.App.1984).*

 As a statement on how to determine the severity of any egregious error in the charge we cannot improve on the following from the court of appeals in 1890:
'But in determining whether the error is material ... we are to look to the whole record bearing upon the subject. What was the nature of the testimony supporting the verdict? Was it cogent and overwhelming? What was the character of the testimony presenting the phase or theory of the case omitted to be noticed in the charge, and upon which omission error is assigned? Was it all reasonable? Did it present a theory which a reasonable mind could entertain, or was it supported by such testimony as was remotely calculated to destroy the State’s case when considered in connection with the other testimony in the case, as well as the charge as a whole? Was the phase of the case simply an addition to the case as made by the State and consistent therewith, or was it in direct conflict with the State’s theory? These are all important matters to be considered in passing upon the (degree of harm) in the omission or error.
Davis v. State, 28 Tex.Ct.App. 542, 13 S.W. 994, 995 (1890), writ of error dism’d, 139 U.S. 651, 11 S.Ct. 675, 35 L.Ed. 300 (1891).” Al-manza v. State, 686 S.W.2d at 172 (footnote omitted).