Court Opinion

ID: 9659397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:43:37.83876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:07.620645
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Justice ROSS.
The majority aligns itself with those sister courts holding it is not error to give part of the Geesa10 instruction on reasonable doubt in the absence of an agreement. I agree with the Waco Court of Appeals that the directive in Paulson11 was clear: “give it all [the Geesa instruction] if the parties agree or give none of it.” Phillips v. State, 72 S.W.3d 719, 721 (Tex.App.-Waco 2002, no pet.). A standard instruction to the jury in all criminal cases is that *171“no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Tex. Code CRim. PROC. Ann. art. 38.03 (Vernon Supp.2003). Paulson quoted with approval an earlier Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision that the language of this statute needs no amplification. Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570, 571 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). Having given the statutory instruction on reasonable doubt in the instant case, the additional selected Geesa instruction was an unwarranted amplification.
For these reasons, I would hold it was error for the trial court to give the selected Geesa instruction. However, considering the entire jury charge and the state of the evidence, I do not feel Fluellen suffered egregious harm from this error. I therefore concur in the result.

. Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).

. Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).