Vasquez v. State
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1263
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Appellant Aníbal Vasquez was charged with aggravated robbery for a scheme with two roommates who robbed a taquería truck driver, with Vasquez allegedly acting as getaway driver.
- Evidence showed the two actual robbers used guns, took money and a phone, and that Vasquez followed the truck in Alexis Martinez’s Suburban.
- The jury charge defined the law of parties in the abstract and the application paragraph stated conviction could occur if acting alone or as a party.
- Appellant argued he was merely present and not a party; trial judge denied his objection to the application paragraph.
- At trial the State argued Vasquez was guilty as a party; defense argued mere presence does not make one a party; the jury convicted and sentenced Vasquez to 19 years.
- On appeal, the court of appeals reversed, relying on Johnson v. State, and held the error in the application paragraph reversible; the State petitioned for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to explicitly apply the law of parties in the application paragraph requires reversal or is harmless | Vasquez; Johnson analysis supports per se harm | State; proper Almanza review should govern harm | Harm analyzed under Almanza; error deemed harmless |
| Whether Johnson v. State should be overruled or disavowed | Vasquez argues Johnson is non-binding plurality; overruling not required | State seeks clarity and adherence to Johnson’s reasoning | Johnson overruled to the extent it suggested per se harm; not binding precedent |
| Application of Almanza factors to determine actual harm given the record | Error not harmful because the abstract law was clear and relied on by the State and defense | Record did not show misdirection; party theory was the sole theory and supported by evidence | Under Almanza, no reversible harm; conviction upheld |
| Whether the trial court’s approach effectively prejudiced the defendant given the State’s sole theory of liability | Error in not naming actual robbers in the paragraph | Names not necessary if reference to abstract law directs the jury | No prejudice found; harmless under Almanza |
| Whether the judgment should be reversed and remanded for a new trial due to charge error | Error required reversal per Johnson | Harmless error; no remand necessary | Rejected; judgment affirmed; error harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 739 S.W.2d 299 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (plurality; discussed harm from failing to tailor application paragraph to facts)
- Chatman v. State, 723 S.W.2d 674 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (application paragraph may reference abstract law if not duplicative)
- Marvis v. State, 36 S.W.3d 867 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (reference to abstract law sufficient without explicit narrowing)
- Plata v. State, 926 S.W.2d 300 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (absence of law-of-parties reference in application paragraph can be error)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (establishes harm standard for preserved charge errors)
- Watson v. State, 693 S.W.2d 938 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (harm analysis framework for application-paragraph errors)
- Nelson v. State, 297 S.W.3d 424 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2009) (harm under Almanza may be found where record shows no harm despite error)
- Jackson v. State, 898 S.W.2d 896 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (general reference to law of parties sufficient when no request for narrowing)