Ambrose, Cynthia, PD-0143-15

Background

The State Prosecuting Attorney filed a post-submission amicus brief in State v. Ambrose, challenging the court of appeals' grant of a new trial for omission of an accomplice-witness instruction.
The court of appeals held the trial court erred in denying a new trial because the defendant did not suffer "egregious harm" from the absent instruction.
Appellee (Ambrose) argued at oral argument that the plain text of Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 36.19 does not mention or require an "egregious harm" standard.
The amicus brief contends Almanza v. State created the judicially-imposed "egregious harm" standard by reading Article 36.19 to supply separate standards for preserved and unpreserved charge errors.
The brief urges the Court to reexamine Almanza and its preservation framework because the Almanza construction (1) departs from Article 36.19’s plain language, (2) allows post-trial review of unobjected-to charge errors only under an "egregious harm"/fundamental-error rubric, and (3) has generated confusion and inconsistent outcomes.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper standard for unobjected-to charge errors under Art. 36.19	Art. 36.19’s plain text governs; it requires reversal only if error "was calculated to injure" or defendant didn’t receive a fair trial — no separate "egregious harm" term exists	Under Almanza, unpreserved charge error is reviewable only if it rises to "egregious harm" (a form of fundamental error)	Amicus urges Court to reject Almanza and apply Article 36.19’s plain language rather than the "egregious harm" test
Whether Almanza properly reads Article 36.19 to create dual standards (preserved vs unpreserved)	Almanza misreads the statute and inserted standards not found in the text	Almanza has governed preservation doctrine and provides a framework distinguishing preserved and unpreserved claims	Amicus asks for reconsideration of Almanza because it departs from statutory text and creates confusion
Effect of Almanza on preservation and post-trial relief (e.g., motions for new trial)	Article 36.19 requires objections at trial; motions for new trial are not authorized avenues for charge objections under current statute	Almanza permits some post-trial review under the egregious-harm standard even without a trial objection	Amicus argues current practice is inconsistent with the statute and advocates clarifying that objections must be made at trial and Almanza’s reach be limited
Relationship between accomplice-witness instruction omissions and sua sponte duties	Omissions that are purely strategic are not errors trial courts must correct sua sponte; accomplice-witness rule has been treated differently by some precedent	Under Almanza and some cases, accomplice-witness instruction omission can be reviewed as an erroneous omission even if not objected to	Amicus highlights inconsistency (e.g., defenses often strategic) and urges clearer rules about when courts must instruct sua sponte

Key Cases Cited

Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (establishes preserved vs. unpreserved charge-error framework and the "egregious harm" standard)
State v. Ambrose, 457 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2015) (court of appeals' decision granting new trial addressed accomplice-witness instruction and harm)
Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (describes when courts have sua sponte duty to instruct on issues)
Delgado v. State, 235 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (strategic defensive issues typically not subject to sua sponte instruction)
Zamora v. State, 411 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (discusses application of accomplice-witness rule and instructional duties)
Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (addresses error-preservation principles and landmark preservation decisions)
Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (noted as a watershed preservation decision)
Leal v. State, 456 S.W.3d 567 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (example of Court granting review on its own motion to address preservation issues)