Miguel Gomez v. State, 498 S.W.3d 691

Complainant (then age 7) testified to multiple alleged sexual assaults by Miguel Gomez — at least four distinct incidents (baby-oil washing, bed incident, wrestling/pelvis contact, shower washing).
Evidence relied almost entirely on testimony (complainant, family members, forensic interviewer, therapist, CAC expert); no medical/DNA corroboration.
Gomez was indicted for a single count of aggravated sexual assault of a child; he did not request the State to elect a single incident and did not testify.
The jury charge omitted a unanimity instruction requiring jurors to agree on a single incident; it included only generic unanimity language and a limiting instruction on extraneous acts.
During closing, the prosecutor expressly told jurors they could convict even if different jurors relied on different incidents (misstating the law); defense did not object.
Jury convicted Gomez; court assessed 25 years. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to egregious harm from the unanimity error and the prosecutor’s misstatement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jury charge error occurred by failing to require unanimity on a single incident	Gomez: charge must instruct jury to unanimously agree on a single discrete incident when multiple incidents are in evidence	State: generic unanimity language and limiting instruction sufficed; error not preserved by no objection	Court: Charge erred — generic instruction insufficient; jury could convict non‑unanimously
Whether error caused egregious harm (Almanza standard)	Gomez: omission plus prosecutor’s misstatement deprived him of unanimous-verdict right	State: no timely objection; any error harmless or not egregious given evidence	Court: Error caused egregious harm (vacated) — prosecutor’s misstatement strongly weighed in favor of harm
Effect of absence of election by defense	Gomez: did not force State to elect to avoid jury confusion; relied on judge to ensure unanimity	State: defendant waived by not objecting or asking for election	Court: Defendant may strategically forgo election, but judge must still ensure unanimity via charge; failure here is reversible if egregious harm shown
Whether jury’s note during deliberations indicated confusion about unanimity	Gomez: note shows jurors unsure whether they must agree on a single instance	State: question concerned indictment date, not unanimity	Court: Jury note did not show confusion about which instance; this factor was neutral

Cosio v. State, 353 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (trial court must ensure jury unanimity as to a single incident when evidence shows multiple acts)
Stuhler v. State, 218 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (unanimity requires agreement on a single discrete incident)
Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (framework for analyzing jury-charge error and harm under Almanza)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (standard for reversible jury-charge error when no timely objection)
Arrington v. State, 451 S.W.3d 834 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (generic unanimity instructions insufficient where multiple incidents presented)