Ambrose, Cynthia, PD-0143-15

Ambrose, a kindergarten teacher, was convicted of official oppression for directing and allowing students to strike a boy in her class.
Trial court granted a new trial because the jury charge lacked an accomplice-witness instruction and found egregious harm.
Fourth Court of Appeals reversed, holding no egregious harm and affirming the conviction.
State challenged the trial court’s authority to substitute its findings with the appellate court’s view of the record.
Appellate review applied Almanza’s harm standard and substituted the trial court’s findings; the issue is whether this is permissible given Wheeler/Oregon Kennedy precedent.
The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s factual findings should be deferentially reviewed and that, here, the absence of the instruction did not produce egregious harm, so the trial court’s order should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Almanza’s egregious-harm standard on review conflicts with Kennedy/Wheeler precedent.	Ambrose argues appellate review cannot overturn trial-findings by substituting its view.	State maintains appellate review may substitute if trial findings are improper.	Deferral to trial findings; egregious-harm standard applies when no timely objection; no constitutional conflict.
Whether the absence of an accomplice-witness instruction caused egregious harm.	Ambrose contends harm was egregious due to lack of instruction.	State asserts corroboration was sufficiently strong without the instruction.	No egregious harm; non-accomplice corroboration viewed with the entire record does not render trial unfair.
Whether the appellate court properly considered the record as a whole under Almanza.	Ambrose asserts the court ignored the full jury charge and evidence.	State argues the focus was on probative corroboration.	Appellate court must review the full record; here the relevant analysis supported reversal of egregious-harm finding.

Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982) (deference to trial-court factual findings)
Ex parte Wheeler, 203 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (defers to trial court findings; credibility determinations)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (harm standard; considers entire record for egregious harm)
State v. McKnight, 213 S.W.3d 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (requires Almanza harm standards for new-trial orders)
Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (non-accomplice evidence reliability and ties to charged offense)
Casanova v. State, 383 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (define what constitutes exceedingly weak corroboration)
Blake v. State, 971 S.W.2d 451 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (accomplice-witness rule—need for corroboration)
Igo v. State, 210 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (contextual guidance on Almanza harm review)