Background

• Appellant Brandon Cornett convicted of first-degree murder; punishment phase verdict set at 42 years and $10,000 fine after denying sudden-passion defense.
• Punishment phase included a special issue on sudden passion arising from adequate cause; definitions of 'sudden passion' and 'adequate cause' given.
• Jury charge contained a general unanimity instruction plus a separate sudden-passion verdict form with its own burden of proof on Cornett.
• Trial evidence showed Hall shot to death with three gunshot wounds; witnesses heard noises but did not witness the shooting; no weapon found on Hall.
• Defendant admitted shooting Hall in videotaped statements; defense theory centered on self-defense versus sudden passion; no eyewitness to the shooting.
• Trial court did not invite a jury poll on unanimity after the verdict; appellant appealed asserting non-unanimous verdict on the sudden-passion issue.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Sanchez v. State, 23 S.W.3d 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (unanimity required on sudden-passion issue (earlier standard))
• Swearingen v. State, 270 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008) (unanimity issue with related charge error; harm analysis guidance)
• Barfield v. State, 202 S.W.3d 912 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006) (unanimity considerations with general vs. special verdict forms)
• London v. State, 325 S.W.3d 197 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (framework for evaluating jury-charge error and harm)
• Bradshaw v. State, 244 S.W.3d 490 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (unanimity and harm assessment for punitive-phase errors)
• Curry v. State, 222 S.W.3d 745 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007) (unanimity and harm considerations in similar context)
• Newton v. State, 168 S.W.3d 255 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005) (unanimity requirement discussion for sudden-passion issues)
• Sullivan v. Almanza, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (standard for egregious-harm review ( Almanza ))