Almanza v. State
- Decided
- February 27, 1985
- Docket
- 242-83
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
Cited 6,557 timesOverruled on other grounds (verified)Overruled on other grounds (verified) · Scott C. Brown v. State
What later courts said
- holding that appellant must show erroneous charge caused egregious harm preventing fair and impartial trial — Zunker v. State (2005)
- holding that “an error which has been properly preserved by objection will call for reversal as long as the error is not harmless” — Alexandro Jordan Bravo v. State (2015)
- holding that if error is found in jury charge and defendant fails to object to such error, defendant must show egregious harm — Jonathan Lewis Rainey v. State (2008)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW TEAGUE, Judge.
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals stated the following in Almanza v. State, 645 S.W.2d 885 (Tex.App. — Ft. Worth 1983):
Although many recent opinions have offhandedly dismissed the changing of ‘and’ in the indictment to ‘or’ in the court’s charge, such approach is dangerous and usually fatal in matters where aggravation or jurisdiction is involved. In the instant cause of aggravated rape the indictment joined the allegation of threats of death to the standard form allegation of rape by the word and. In the court’s charge, [however], the aggravation feature was disjoined from rape by the word or. Such constitutes fundamental error. Messenger v. State, 638 S.W.2d 883 (Tex.Cr.App.1982).
Cite this
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (1985)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.