Chapman v. State
Decision Date | 08 May 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 1300-93,1300-93 |
Citation | 921 S.W.2d 694 |
Parties | Larry Ray CHAPMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Loren A. Detamore, Houston, for appellant.
Ernest Davila, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Robert A. Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appellant was convicted of unauthorized use of a vehicle, Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 31.07, and sentenced to sixty years confinement. See, Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(d). The Court of Appeals affirmed. Chapman v. State, 859 S.W.2d 509 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1993). We granted appellant's petition for discretionary review to determine whether appellant's requested instruction was sufficient to call the trial judge's attention to an error in the court's charge on guilt. 1 We will reverse and remand.
The facts surrounding the police investigation and appellant's arrest appear in the Court of Appeals' opinion. Chapman, 859 S.W.2d at 511. Therefore, we set forth only those facts which are relevant to the disposition of the instant ground for review.
At the conclusion of the evidentiary portion of the trial, and after the trial judge allowed the parties to review the proposed charge, appellant requested an additional instruction under Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 38.23 as it related to the stop of his vehicle. At the trial judge's request, appellant dictated a proposed instruction, and the following occurred:
The jury was never instructed under art. 38.23.
The Court of Appeals stated appellant's requested instruction "would have erroneously instructed the jury that, at their option, they 'may choose not to use such evidence [obtained from an arrest made without reasonable suspicion that criminal activity had occurred] in [their] deliberations.' " Chapman, 859 S.W.2d at 513. The Court held "[a]ppellant cannot dictate an incorrect variant of an article 38.23 charge and later insist that 'that charge' was a request for a charge under article 38.23." Ibid. Likewise, the Court did not believe appellant's statement: "I want a charge on 38.23" was sufficient because appellant's statement was "buried in the discussion of the incorrect charge...." Ibid.
Justice O'Connor dissented, believing appellant made a specific objection and a specific request for the instruction set forth in art. 38.23. Id., 859 S.W.2d at 518. Justice O'Connor would have held appellant was entitled to an instruction under Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 38.23 and that appellant has demonstrated harm. Ibid.
In Stone v. State, 703 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), the defendant requested an instruction under art. 38.23 and dictated a requested instruction to the court. Stone's requested instruction was erroneous because it
... misstated the law both in directing the jury to consider probable cause, and then what to do if they failed to find probable cause; and, the charge constituted an impermissible comment on the weight of the evidence.
Id., 703 S.W.2d at 655. However, we held that the Code of Criminal Procedure did not require Stone to request an instruction in perfect form. See, Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 36.15. We held "[t]he requested charge must only be sufficient to call the trial court's attention to the omission in the court's charge." Ibid., quoting Stiles v. State, 520 S.W.2d 894, 896-897 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). Stone prevailed because his requested instruction was sufficient to apprise the trial judge of the objection to the charge. Ibid. Accord, Polk v. State, 738 S.W.2d 274, 276 (Tex.Cr.App.1987).
Stone is controlling. Therefore, we hold appellant's requested instruction, coupled with his statements to the trial judge, were sufficient to apprise the trial judge of appellant's objection to omissions in the charge. This is all that is required to preserve error, if any. Stone, supra; Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 36.15. See also, Vasquez v. State, 919 S.W.2d 433, 434-35 (Tex.Cr.App.1996), (If the defendant requests a special charge, no adverse ruling is required to preserve error.).
Accordingly, the holding of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Butler v. State
...we find that it was sufficient to call the trial court's attention to the claimed omission in the charge. See Chapman v. State, 921 S.W.2d 694, 695 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Bohnet v. State, 938 S.W.2d 532, 534 n. 1 (Tex.App.--Austin 1997, pet. ref'd).10 The prosecutor made one other brief refer......
-
Brewer v. State
...form" but must be specific enough to put the trial court on notice of the omission or error in the charge. See Chapman v. State, 921 S.W.2d 694, 695 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Gaspar v. State, 327 S.W.3d 349, 355 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, no pet.); Jackson v. State, 288 S.W.3d 60, 63 (Tex. Ap......
-
Ex Parte Moreno
...v. State, 630 S.W.2d 640, 643 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982); Stone v. State, 703 S.W.2d 652, 655 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986); Chapman v. State, 921 S.W.2d 694, 695 (Tex.Crim. App.1996); Francis v. State, 36 S.W.3d 121, 123 41. Applicant's Brief, at 20-23. See Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, supra, at 1662 ("The......
-
William Graeme Ford v. the State of Texas
...arts. 36.14 and 36.15. These statutory provisions do not require the requested charge to be "in perfect form." See Chapman v. State, 921 S.W.2d 694, 695 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Rather, the request need only be "sufficient to call the trial court's attention to the omission in the court's ch......
-
Error Preservation and Appeal
...and places the trial court on notice as to the omission in the charge that is actually submitted to the jury. [ Chapman v. State , 921 S.W.2d 694 (Tex.Crim. App. 1996).] Although requested jury instructions should be in writing, such requests may be dictated to the court reporter in the pre......
-
Trial Motions
...requested charge must only be sufficient to call the trial court’s attention to the omission in the court’s charge. Chapman v. State , 921 S.W.2d 694 (Tex.Cr.App. 1996). Where defense counsel dictated an objection to the jury charge to the court reporter with permission of trial judge, erro......
-
Error Preservation and Appeal
...and places the trial court on notice as to the omission in the charge that is actually submitted to the jury. [ Chapman v. State , 921 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. Crim.App. 1996).] Although requested jury instructions should be in writing, such requests may be dictated to the court reporter in the pre......
-
Error Preservation and Appeal
...and places the trial court on notice as to the omission in the charge that is actually submitted to the jury. [ Chapman v. State , 921 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. Crim.App. 1996).] Although requested jury instructions should be in writing, such requests may be dictated to the court reporter in the pre......