Cherry Jamila Payton v. the State of Texas, 14-22-00598-CR

Cherry Jamila Payton was convicted in the 400th District Court, Fort Bend County, Texas, for continuous sexual abuse of a child, based on both her own alleged acts and those of a co-defendant described as her fiancé.
Payton appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by failing to include a mistake of fact instruction in the jury charge.
The defense was preserved for appellate review, as Payton's counsel specifically requested a mistake of fact instruction based on the claim that cultural and religious beliefs permitted child marriage.
The jury was charged with alternative theories: convicting Payton as a party for her fiancé’s actions, or convicting her for her own acts in a different county.
The appellate court presumed—without deciding—that omitting the mistake of fact instruction was error, but analyzed whether this omission caused harm sufficient for reversal.
The concurring justice ultimately agreed that the conviction should be affirmed, finding any error in the jury instructions was harmless given the charging options presented to the jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Omission of mistake of fact instruction	Payton argued the jury should have been instructed due to her mistaken belief about legality of child marriage given her culture/religion.	State argued the instruction was either unnecessary or the mistake did not negate culpability for all manners of the offense.	Court presumed error but found it harmless; conviction affirmed.
Whether mistake of fact negates culpability on all theories charged	The mistake could negate intent only for party liability, not for Payton's personal acts of abuse.	The jury could convict under alternative theories where mistake of fact defense did not apply.	Omission was harmless because the charge allowed conviction under a theory unaffected by the mistake defense.

Jenkins v. State, 468 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (sets out two-step standard for reviewing jury charge error)
Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (clarifies error and harm analysis for jury charge issues)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (establishes 'some harm' and 'egregious harm' standards for charge error reversal)
Granger v. State, 3 S.W.3d 36 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (defendant entitled to defensive issue instruction if raised by evidence)
Jordan v. State, 593 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (defense is raised by some evidence supporting each element)
Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard for when a defense is raised by evidence)
Kitchens v. State, 823 S.W.2d 256 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (general verdict permitted if evidence supports any theory submitted)