1. Were the jury verdict forms submitted to the jury in this case a part of the court's charge to the jury?
2. If the jury verdict forms submitted to the jury in this case were not part of the jury charge, are the forms an integral part of the verdict and subsequent judgment of the court based on the jury's verdict?
3. Should an improper verdict form submitted to the jury in this case be subject to the harm analysis described in Almanza v. State?
4. Were Petitioner's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United State's Constitution and right to due course of law under Article 1, §19 of the Texas Constitution violated as a result of the failure of the court to submit a "not guilty" verdict on all charges to the jury?
Zoinks! Jennings paid a named Ray to fix her engine, but he failed to do so. So, Jennings, her boyfriend, and another dude broke into Ray’s home and beat Ray up. She was charged with burglary with intent to commit aggravated assault, but the jury convicted on the lesser-included offense of burglary with intent to commit simple assault. The three verdict forms allowed the jury to find Jennings not guilty of aggravated assault burglary, guilty of aggravated assault burglary, or guilty of simple assault burglary. Jennings never objected to the lack of a total “not guilty” jury verdict form. The court of appeals held in a published opinion that the lack of an objection waived the error. Here’s a link to the court of appeals case info.
[This explains why all the fuss about the verdict forms being a part of the jury charge. If they aren’t, then the error could be waived, but if they are, Bluitt holds that the court was required to conduct an egregious harm analysis. The path of least resistance seems to be to hold that it’s part of the charge and remand for egregious harm analysis.]
