663 S.W.3d 646
Tex. Crim. App.2022Background
- Dissenting opinion by Justice Walker in Stredic v. State (Tex. Crim. App.), responding to majority that found sending a transcript to the jury room was error but harmless.
- At trial the jury requested clarification of disputed testimony; instead of having the court reporter read the testimony aloud under article 36.28, the court sent a written transcript into the jury room.
- The majority deemed that procedure erroneous but applied harmless-error review and affirmed; the court of appeals had earlier reversed.
- The dissent argues the procedural deviation is structural error because its effects cannot be measured, relying primarily on Weaver’s framework.
- Central practical concern: transcript access and use in secret deliberations cannot be investigated due to Texas Rule of Evidence 606(b), so there is no reliable record to assess whether the verdict was affected.
- Dissent concludes the error is not amenable to harmless-error analysis and would require reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Stredic's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sending a written transcript to the jury instead of having the court reporter read testimony violated procedure (art. 36.28) | Sending transcript violated article 36.28 and was error | Error acknowledged by court but characterized as subject to harmless-error review | Dissent: It was error and should be treated as structural rather than subject to harmless-error review |
| Whether the error is structural (not amenable to harmless-error analysis) | Error is structural under Weaver because effects are too hard to measure given secret deliberations and Rule 606(b) limits | Error is subject to harmless-error analysis and was harmless in this case | Dissent: Error is structural under Weaver’s second rationale and requires reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017) (framework distinguishing structural errors from those subject to harmless-error review)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (discussion of structural error doctrine)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless-error standard: beyond a reasonable doubt)
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984) (example of right protecting interests other than protection from erroneous conviction)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (denial of counsel of choice and difficulty of measuring effects)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (right to counsel as a structural guarantee)
- Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (reasonable-doubt instruction as structural error)