Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

739 S.W.2d 482

Thibeadeau v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · decided 1988-02-03

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 1996

5 state decisions

Relies on Almanza v. State · Meshell v. State · Boudreaux v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1988-02-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BURGESS, Justice,

¶1dissenting.

¶2I respectfully dissent to the majority’s disposition of the points of error relating to the jury charge pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 37.07, sec. 4 (Vernon Supp.1987). Until settled by our Court of Criminal Appeals, I continue to dissent as noted in Boudreaux v. State, 723 S.W.2d 230 (Tex.App. — Beaumont 1986, no pet.). I would also hold, when necessary, that the instruction is so erroneous and violative of due process that it is fundamental error which rises to egregious harm under Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1984).

¶3Further, on the authority of Meshell v. State, 739 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987), I would hold it unconstitutional as violative of the separation of powers doctrine.

/739/sw2d/482 · .json · Public domain