Jerry Chargois Williams Jr. v. State ( 2020 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-18-00460-CR
__________________
JERRY CHARGOIS WILLIAMS JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 163rd District Court
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. B180045-R
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In his sole issue on appeal, appellant Jerry Chargois Williams complains that
the trial court erred during the punishment phase of the trial by submitting a defective
jury instruction on manslaughter that omitted sudden passion. We affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
1
Pertinent Procedural Background
In February 2018, a grand jury indicted Williams for murder. In November
2018, a jury found Williams guilty of murder after being provided with an instruction
on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. Williams elected to have the jury
assess his punishment. At the conclusion of the punishment phase of the trial,
Williams did not object to the punishment charge or request an instruction on sudden
passion. The jury assessed Williams’s punishment at confinement for life. Williams
filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled by operation of law. Williams
appealed.
Analysis
In his sole issue, Williams complains that the trial court erred during
punishment by submitting a jury instruction on manslaughter that omitted sudden
passion. The State argues that there was no error because Williams did not ask the
trial court to include an instruction on sudden passion or object to its absence in the
charge.
When reviewing alleged charge error, we determine whether error existed in
the charge and, if so, whether sufficient harm resulted from the error to compel
reversal. Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738, 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “Only if we
find error do we then consider whether an objection to the charge was made and
2
analyze for harm.” Tottenham v. State, 285 S.W.3d 19, 30 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2009, pet. ref’d). If jury-charge error exists and a defendant does not object to
the alleged error at trial, we may reverse the judgment only if the error is so egregious
that the defendant did not receive a fair and impartial trial. Almanza v. State, 686
S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (op. on reh’g); see also Herron v. State,
86 S.W.3d 621, 632 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). “Jury charge error is egregiously
harmful if it affects the very basis of the case, deprives the defendant of a valuable
right, or vitally affects a defensive theory.” Allen v. State, 253 S.W.3d 260, 264 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008). In assessing the degree of harm, we must consider the entire jury
charge, the state of the evidence, the argument of counsel, and any other relevant
information revealed by the record. Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171.
“At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to
whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising
from an adequate cause.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(d). A trial court is only
required to submit instructions on “the law applicable to the case[.]” Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 36.14. Article 36.14 imposes no duty on a trial court to sua
sponte instruct the jury on an unrequested defensive issue. Taylor v. State, 332
S.W.3d 483, 487 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Sudden passion is a defensive issue, and
3
an “unrequested defensive issue is not the law applicable to the case.” Id.; Newkirk
v. State, 506 S.W.3d 188, 191-92 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, no pet).
We conclude the trial court did not err by failing to sua sponte submit a sudden
passion instruction during punishment because Williams did not request an
instruction on the defensive issue or object to its absence. See Simpson v. State, 548
S.W.3d 708, 711 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. ref’d); Swaim v. State,
306 S.W.3d 323, 325 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref’d); Newkirk, 506
S.W.3d at 191-92. Because no error exists, we need not analyze for harm. See
Tottenham, 285 S.W.3d at 30. We overrule Williams’s sole issue and affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
______________________________
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
Submitted on January 2, 2020
Opinion Delivered April 29, 2020
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
4