Li v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Li v. State

165 S.W.3d 392, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 2228, 2005 WL 675572

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 24, 2005

Docket2-04-108-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 165 S.W.3d 392 (Li v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Li v. State, 165 S.W.3d 392, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 2228, 2005 WL 675572 (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

*393 OPINION

LEE ANN DAUPHINOT, Justice.

A jury convicted Appellant Anne I. Li of assault with bodily injury, and the trial court sentenced her to 120 days in jail, probated for one year, plus a $500 fíne. In one point, Appellant complains of the following jury instruction: “It is not required that the prosecution prove guilt beyond all possible doubt; it is required that the prosecution’s proof excludes all reasonable doubt concerning the defendant’s guilt.” Appellant argues that this instruction is erroneous because it amounts to an improper definition of beyond a reasonable doubt.

The complained of instruction is part of the Geesa definition of beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 As Appellant points out, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held in Paulson v. State that giving the full Geesa instruction is reversible error absent agreement of the parties. 2 Appellant here did not agree to the instruction.

While it seems fundamentally unfair that all portions of the definition of beyond a reasonable doubt that benefit a defendant have been removed from the definition, leaving only the portion that benefits the State, and while it seems clear that if the definition is improper in whole it should also be improper when only that portion which benefits one party and not the other is retained, both this court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals have ruled otherwise, holding that the instruction in question is not improper. 3

We are constrained therefore to hold that the trial court did not err in including the complained of portion of the Geesa instruction in the jury charge. We overrule Appellant’s sole point and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

WALKER and McCOY, JJ. concur without opinion.

1

. See Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154, 162 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).

2

. 28 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).

3

. See Woods v. State, 152 S.W.3d 105, 115 (Tex.Crim.App.2004); e.g., Pope v. State, 161 S.W.3d 114, 125 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, no pet. h.).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*393 OPINION

LEE ANN DAUPHINOT, Justice.

A jury convicted Appellant Anne I. Li of assault with bodily injury, and the trial court sentenced her to 120 days in jail, probated for one year, plus a $500 fíne. In one point, Appellant complains of the following jury instruction: “It is not required that the prosecution prove guilt beyond all possible doubt; it is required that the prosecution’s proof excludes all reasonable doubt concerning the defendant’s guilt.” Appellant argues that this instruction is erroneous because it amounts to an improper definition of beyond a reasonable doubt.

The complained of instruction is part of the Geesa definition of beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 As Appellant points out, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held in Paulson v. State that giving the full Geesa instruction is reversible error absent agreement of the parties. 2 Appellant here did not agree to the instruction.

While it seems fundamentally unfair that all portions of the definition of beyond a reasonable doubt that benefit a defendant have been removed from the definition, leaving only the portion that benefits the State, and while it seems clear that if the definition is improper in whole it should also be improper when only that portion which benefits one party and not the other is retained, both this court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals have ruled otherwise, holding that the instruction in question is not improper. 3

We are constrained therefore to hold that the trial court did not err in including the complained of portion of the Geesa instruction in the jury charge. We overrule Appellant’s sole point and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

WALKER and McCOY, JJ. concur without opinion.

1

. See Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154, 162 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).

2

. 28 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).

3

. See Woods v. State, 152 S.W.3d 105, 115 (Tex.Crim.App.2004); e.g., Pope v. State, 161 S.W.3d 114, 125 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, no pet. h.).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 S.W.3d 392, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 2228, 2005 WL 675572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/li-v-state-texapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack