Ambrose, Cynthia
2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 77
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Cynthia Ambrose, a kindergarten teacher, was convicted of misdemeanor official oppression for directing/allowing students to strike a pupil after she allegedly told her class to "bully" the child; the jury heard testimony from fellow teacher Ramirez (the purported accomplice), school administrators, and Ambrose herself.
- The jury charge omitted an accomplice-witness instruction (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.14); Ambrose did not object at trial but raised the omission in a post-trial motion for new trial.
- The trial court granted the motion for new trial, finding Ramirez was an accomplice and that the omission caused Ambrose egregious harm; the State appealed.
- The court of appeals assumed error in omitting the instruction but reversed the trial court’s grant of a new trial, holding Ambrose was not egregiously harmed under the Almanza standard due to substantial non-accomplice corroboration (administrators’ testimony and Ambrose’s own statements).
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the court of appeals: (1) Almanza’s egregious-harm framework applies on appellate review even when the issue is raised in a motion for new trial; (2) appellate courts need not defer to trial-court findings on egregious harm when the determination is a mixed question of law and fact not dependent on credibility/demeanor; and (3) the record showed sufficient non-accomplice corroboration, so omission was not egregiously harmful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ambrose) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Standard of review for jury-charge error raised in motion for new trial | Igo should not control; appellate review of a trial court granting a new trial should use abuse-of-discretion standard | Almanza (Article 36.19) governs charge-error harm analysis on appeal even if raised in motion for new trial | Almanza applies; appellate courts use egregious-harm framework for unpreserved charge error raised in a motion for new trial |
| 2. Deference to trial-court findings of egregious harm | Appellate court must defer to trial-court findings of fact/conclusions (trial judge observed witnesses) | Trial-court finding that error was egregious harm is a mixed legal question not turning on credibility here, so no deference required | No mandatory deference; where egregious-harm determination is a mixed question not dependent on credibility/demeanor, appellate review is not bound by trial-court labels |
| 3. Whether omission of accomplice-witness instruction egregiously harmed defendant | Omission deprived Ambrose of protection requiring corroboration of Ramirez’s testimony; trial court found egregious harm | Record contains strong non-accomplice corroboration (principals’ testimony and Ambrose’s own statements) so omission was not egregiously harmful | Omission was not egregiously harmful; non-accomplice evidence sufficiently tended to connect Ambrose to the offense |
| 4. Proper scope of corroboration analysis under Article 38.14 | Corroboration must address contested elements (e.g., intent) as evaluated by court of appeals | Article 38.14 requires only some non-accomplice evidence tending to connect defendant to the crime, not corroboration of every element | Corroboration need only tend to connect defendant to the offense; court focused on overall corroborative strength, not requiring proof of each element |
Key Cases Cited
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (framework for assessing harm from unpreserved jury-charge error)
- Igo v. State, 210 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (Almanza harm analysis applies when charge error is raised in a motion for new trial)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (deference to trial court on historical facts tied to credibility/demeanor)
- Casanova v. State, 383 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (corroboration under art. 38.14 must tend to connect defendant to offense; strength of corroboration informs harm analysis)
- Vasquez v. State, 56 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (Article 38.14 does not require corroboration of every element)
- Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (omission of accomplice-witness instruction generally harmless unless corroboration is so weak that overall case is clearly and significantly less persuasive)