Casanova, Efrain Medina v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 10th District Court of Galveston County

Opinion issued December 19, 2002

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NOS. 01-01-00905-CR

01-01-00906-CR

01-01-00907-CR

EFRAIN MEDINA CASANOVA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 10th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 01CR0068, 01CR 0069, 01CR0070

O P I N I O N

Background

Appellant, Efrain Medina Casanova, was charged by indictment with two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and one count of indecency with a child by contact. Appellant objected to an instruction in the jury charge which defined beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury found appellant guilty of all three charged offenses. Appellant was sentenced to 25 and 30 years confinement for the first two counts and 15 years for the third count. Appellant presents two points of error for review, contending the trial court erred in: (1) including an instruction in the jury charge on the definition of the state s burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of his federal constitutional right to due process, and (2) including an instruction in the jury charge on the definition of the state s burden of proof, even though it is prohibited under Texas law.

Discussion

In his two points of error, appellant claims Texas law and his federal due process rights were violated when the trial court included an instruction in the jury charge defining beyond a reasonable doubt. Texas courts are no longer required to define reasonable doubt. Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). This Court has previously held that a charge identical to the charge before us in this case was proper because it did not actually define reasonable doubt it merely instructed the jury that appellant s guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all possible doubt. Carriere v. State, 84 S.W.3d 753, 759 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. filed). Thus, appellant s argument is without merit. We overrule appellant s two points of error.

Conclusion

We affirm the trial court s judgment.

Sam Nuchia

Justice

Panel consists of Justice Nuchia, Jennings, and Radack.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.