Ambrose, Cynthia, PD-0143-15

Background

Cynthia Ambrose, a kindergarten teacher, was convicted by a jury of official oppression for directing students to "bully" (strike) a 5‑year‑old (A.N.). Jury returned guilty after ~42 minutes; punishment probated with 30 days confinement.
At trial, Barbara Ramirez (the teacher who brought A.N. to Ambrose's class) testified about the incident; she delayed reporting for two weeks and received immunity for timely‑reporting offense in exchange for testimony. Ambrose gave inconsistent statements: initial administrative admission that she instructed students to hit A.N., later denied directing hits at trial.
Ambrose moved for a new trial asserting, among other grounds, that the court failed sua sponte to instruct on the accomplice‑witness corroboration rule (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.14). The trial court granted a new trial solely on that basis and signed findings/conclusions submitted by Ambrose.
The State appealed. The Fourth Court of Appeals assumed (without deciding) Ramirez was an accomplice but held Ambrose was not egregiously harmed by the missing accomplice‑witness instruction and reversed the trial court’s grant of a new trial.
The State seeks affirmance before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing Article 36.19/Almanza governs review of jury‑charge error raised in a motion for new trial, appellate review of egregious‑harm is de novo when credibility is not dispositive, and the court of appeals properly applied Almanza and found no egregious harm.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ambrose)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held (Court of Appeals / State urges)
1) What standard governs appellate review of jury‑charge error raised in a motion for new trial?	Defer to trial court's factual findings and review for abuse of discretion (Rule 21.3 approach).	Article 36.19 as construed in Almanza governs; appellate courts must apply the egregious‑harm standard (Igo rejects deferential alternative).	Court of Appeals applied Almanza; State urges affirmance that Almanza/Igo govern.
2) Must appellate courts defer to trial court’s determination that error caused egregious harm?	Trial court findings/conclusions require deference; appellate review limited.	Egregious‑harm is a mixed question of law and fact; when analysis does not turn on witness credibility, review is de novo (Guzman framework).	Court of Appeals reviewed de novo; State argues de novo review was correct.
3) Was Ambrose egregiously harmed by failure to give accomplice‑witness instruction?	Missing instruction was outcome‑determinative; trial court properly granted new trial.	Record (admissions, corroborating witnesses, jury charge, arguments, quick verdict) shows corroborating evidence was relatively strong; no egregious harm.	Court of Appeals held Ambrose not egregiously harmed and reversed grant of new trial; State urges affirmance.
4) Was Ramirez an accomplice as matter of law/fact?	Implicitly argued at trial that she was; trial court's grant presumes accomplice status.	Fourth Court of Appeals assumed (without deciding) accomplice status and instead resolved egregious harm; State preserved alternative contest that Ramirez was not an accomplice.	Court of Appeals did not decide accomplice issue; State requests remand if CCA finds error in harm analysis so accomplice question can be addressed.

Key Cases Cited

Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (Article 36.19 harm framework; egregious‑harm standard for unpreserved jury‑charge error)
Igo v. State, 210 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (Almanza egregious‑harm standard applies to charge errors raised in motions for new trial; rejects deferential abuse‑of‑discretion substitute)
McKnight v. State, 213 S.W.3d 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (per curiam) (applies Igo; remands for proper Alm anza analysis where necessary)
Casanova v. State, 383 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (in accomplice‑witness context, reviewing court must assess whether corroborating evidence would be so unconvincing as to make State’s case clearly and significantly less persuasive)
Gelinas v. State, 398 S.W.3d 703 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Almanza factors for assessing harm: entire charge, state of evidence, counsel arguments, record as whole)
Zamora v. State, 411 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Almanza is statutory interpretation of Article 36.19; not a court‑made rule)
Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (framework for levels of appellate deference: historical facts/credibility, credibility‑based mixed questions, and non‑credibility mixed questions reviewed de novo)