Denton v. State

¶1concurring.

¶2I join the opinion of the Court and agree this cause should be remanded to the court of appeals to conduct another harm analysis under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 81(b)(2). I write separately to reexamine our holding in Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App.1989), in which this Court provided guidance as to how such harm anal-yses should be conducted.

¶3Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 81(b)(2), the harmless error rule, is the Texas statutory equivalent of the harmless error rule established by the United States Supreme Court in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), for addressing constitutional errors. Rule 81(b)(2) requires the reviewing court to reverse a criminal conviction where the record below reveals error in the proceedings “unless the appellate court determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the error made no contribution to the conviction or to the punishment.”

¶4“As noted, Rule 81(b)2) mandates that the appellate court focus upon the error and determine whether it contributed to the conviction or the punishment. Irrespective of the focus of the inquiry, it is impossible to gauge the significance of the error apart from the remaining properly admitted evidence. This approach obviously implicates a review of the evidence, but the concern is solely to trace the impact of the error.” Harris, 790 S.W.2d at 585-586.

¶5Neither this Court nor the United States Supreme Court has established a coherent and consistent standard to determine whether or not an error is harmless. Logically, the best standard is the overwhelming evidence standard. That is, if the record shows overwhelming evidence of guilt (disregarding erroneously admitted evidence, if any) then any error is, by definition, harmless. The Supreme Court utilized the overwhelming evidence standard in Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 106 S.Ct. 3101, 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986); Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 92 S.Ct. 1056, 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972). Yet, as pointed out by the majority in Harris, supra, at 586, the Supreme Court did not follow the overwhelming evidence standard in Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249, 108 S.Ct. 1792, 100 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988). The Supreme Court, in effect, held that harmless error had to be measured on a case-by-case basis, rather than by reference to a formula or precise rule, and reiterated its holding in Chapmanthat “the question, however, is not whether the legally admitted evidence was sufficient to support the death sentence, which we assume it was, but rather, whether the State has proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” Satterwhite, 486 U.S. at 258-59, 108 S.Ct. at 1798, citing Chapman, *314386 U.S. at 24, 87 S.Ct. at 828.1

¶6In my opinion, an error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if the record shows there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the finding of guilt or the assessment of punishment. If the record shows the evidence of guilt is so overwhelming that no rational trier of fact would have voted for a verdict other than one of guilty, or, in the case of error affecting punishment, would have answered the punishment issues differently, then the no reasonable possibility standard is met. This standard assures that a criminal conviction in Texas will not be reversed for minor procedural trial errors where there is absolutely no question as to the defendant’s guilt. At the same time, this strict standard will assure that any criminal trial in Texas will be an essentially fair trial.2 After all, the purpose of the harmless error rule is to avoid setting aside convictions for errors that have little, if any, likelihood of having affected the result of the trial, because the reversal of a conviction entails substantial social costs. Chapman, 386 U.S. at 21-23, 87 S.Ct. at 827.

¶7I disagree with the Harrismajority’s assertion that “a reviewing court, in applying the harmless error rule should not focus upon the propriety of the outcome of the trial. Instead, an appellate court should be concerned with the integrity of the process leading to the conviction.” Harris, supra, at 587. It is my opinion that both are equally important. A procedurally perfect trial resulting in an unjust conviction is just as constitutionally disturbing as a trial with substantive procedural errors, regardless of its outcome. Rule 81(b)(2) was formulated to strike a balance between those who strive for “procedural perfection” and those who strive for the “right result” regardless of the procedural rights of the accused.3

¶8Accordingly, I would vacate the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to that court to conduct a second harmless error analysis employing the standard delineated above.

¶9With these comments I join the opinion of the Court.

¶13dissenting.

¶14Appellant was convicted of murder. The court of appeals reversed in Denton v. State, 896 S.W.2d 580 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1995). The State filed a petition for discretionary review raising three questions for review, all of which involve the court of appeals’ treatment of appellant’s claim about the State’s jury arguments at guilt/innocence. During the State’s closing argument, the prosecutor twice included comments of evidence that were outside the record. The defense’s objection to the first comment was overruled, but the second objection was sustained and the court instructed the jury to disregard the statement.

¶15The court of appeals found and then held that the statements were in fact outside the record. The court of appeals held that they could not conclude that such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Tex.R.App. Pro. 81(b)(2). It is clear from their opinion that the court of appeals concluded that this error was not harmless only after considering the factors enunciated in Harris. Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Cr.App.1989). In addition to examining the Harris factors while conducting its harm analysis, the court of appeals also stated that it was “not persuaded that had the errors not occurred, every rational juror would necessarily reject the defense and return a verdict of ‘guilty’.” Denton v. State, 896 S.W.2d 580. The majority found that the court of appeals failed to apply the correct legal standard by adding this additional language and by failing to *318consider other evidence of appellant’s intent. I disagree. I acknowledge that this comment was unnecessary to the harm analysis, but it is evident from the remainder of the court’s rationale that a detailed and correct harm analysis under Harris, was performed by the court of appeals. The addition of this unnecessary element did not negate the fact that a thorough harm analysis was performed by the court of appeals in accordance with Harris. Further, there is no requirement for the court of appeals to consider additional evidence if any regarding appellant’s intent once they were convinced that they could not find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error made no contribution to the punishment.

¶16This Court has held that we would not substitute our- own judgment for that of the court of appeals, as long as the court of appeals impartially applies the correct law and the correct legal standard. Arcila v. State, 834 S.W.2d 357 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). This is the case even if our decision might have been different. Our job is simply to “dispel any confusion generated in the past by our own case law, to reconcile settled differences between the various courts of appeal, and to promote fair administration of justice by trial and appellate courts throughout Texas.” Arcila, supra at 361. The court of appeals did fairly conduct its harm analysis using both the proper law and standard, and its conclusion is supported by the record.

¶17For these reasons I disagree with the majority’s decision to remand this cause to the Second Court of Appeals for a second harm analysis. I instead would refuse the State’s petition for discretionary review with a disclaimer regarding the unnecessary language used by the court of appeals.