Randall Crow v. Gilbert Burnett and Greg William Burnett

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 20, 1997
• Docket: 10-96-00113-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Crow-Randall v. Burnett

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-96-113-CV

     RANDALL CROW,

                                                                              Appellant

     v.

     GILBERT BURNETT

      AND GREG WILLIAM BURNETT,

                                                                              Appellees

 

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court # 50,184

                                                                                                                 

DISSENTING OPINION

                                                                                                                 

      I dissent. See Lance v. USAA Ins. Co., 934 S.W.2d 427, 431-33 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996, no writ) (Vance, J., dissenting). As was true in Lance, the injured party testified to pain arising shortly after the accident and that evidence is uncontroverted. Thus, the jury's failure to find any damages is contrary to the weight of the evidence. See Croucher v. Croucher, 660 S.W.2d 55, 58 (Tex. 1983).

      I would reverse the judgment and remand the cause for another trial.

                                                                                 BILL VANCE

                                                                                 Justice

Opinion delivered and filed August 20, 1997

Publish

 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 

Appellee

From the 272nd District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 29252F-272, 29311F-272 and 29308F-272

      A majority of this Court has previously found unassigned error.  E.g., Hailey v. State, 50 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001), rev’d, 87 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); In re B.L.D., 56 S.W.3d 203 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001) (per curiam), rev’d, 113 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. 2003).  The Court has been reversed.  E.g., Hailey v. State, 87 S.W.3d 118, 121-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1060 (2003); In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 350-51 (Tex. 2003), cert. denied sub nom. Dossey v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Reg. Servs., 124 S. Ct. 1674 (2004).  There is virtually no such thing as unassigned error.  Id.  There is none to be addressed here.

      A majority of this Court has previously found fundamental error.  E.g., Rushing v. State, 50 S.W.3d 715, 722-25 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001), aff’d on other grounds, 85 S.W.3d 283, 284-87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); B.L.D., 56 S.W.3d at 214-15; In re J.F.C., 57 S.W.3d 66, 74 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001), rev’d, 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002).  The Court has been reversed and been held to have erred.  E.g., Rushing v. State, 85 S.W.3d 283, 284-87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 350-51; In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 272-74, 277-79 (Tex. 2002).  There is almost no such thing as fundamental error.  Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334, 340-42 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 887-89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (reasonable doubt instruction not absolute systemic requirement).  There is no fundamental error in the charge without egregious harm.   Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (op. on reh’g).  There is no fundamental error here. 

      The majority again finds unassigned and fundamental error here.  I dissent.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Dissenting opinion delivered and filed November 10, 2004