Court Opinion

ID: 9660357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:11:08.089939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:18.338769
License: Public Domain

DON BURGESS, Justice,
concurring.
Regretfully, I must only concur. Once again this court sees a case where a court has failed to track the indictment in the application paragraph of a jury charge, yet the majority finds no error. I believe this was error, see Bishop v. State, 914 S.W.2d 200, 202 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1995, pet. ref'd), and we should have conducted an Almanza harm analysis, as mentioned by the majority in their footnote one. See Chavis v. State, 807 S.W.2d 375, 378 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. ref'd).
*312Upon such an analysis, the uncontested evidence was that Fowler and the victim were not married. There is no evidence from which the jury could infer that they were spouses. Fowler did not contest the issue either in his case in chief or in his jury argument. I would hold that Fowler was not so egregiously harmed that he did not receive a fair and impartial trial.