Casanova, Matthew John
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1602
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Casanova was convicted of possession of cocaine less than one gram, a state-jail felony, with a one-year sentence.
- Appellant argued the trial court failed to give an Article 38.14 accomplice-witness instruction.
- Esther Garza, the State’s principal witness, was Garza’s wife and an accomplice as a matter of law.
- The Eighth Court of Appeals reversed, finding egregious harm from the missing instruction and from failure to read the charge aloud.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals, addressing harm under Almanza/Saunders/Herron and concluding no egregious harm from the charge error.
- The case was remanded to consider Casanova’s remaining trial-error claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omitting the accomplice-witness instruction caused egregious harm | Casanova—egregious harm under Saunders/Herron | State—no egregious harm given record | No egregious harm; Court reversed appellate judgment and remanded |
| Whether failure to read the jury charge aloud caused egregious harm | Casanova—read-aloud error triggered egregious harm | State—no automatic egregious harm under Article 36.19 | No egregious harm; Court reversed and remanded for remaining issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Saunders v. State, 817 S.W.2d 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (harm from missing accomplice instruction analyzed via standard of corroboration)
- Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (Almanza harm framework applied to jury-charge issues)
- Quinn v. State, 297 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957) ( reading aloud of jury charge—prior control and injury requirement)
- Burns v. State, 703 S.W.2d 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (illustrative of harm analysis under non-objected errors)
- Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (harm depends on non-accomplice evidence weight)