The State of Texas v. Ronald Herndon, Appellee

Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeals held that Texas law does not require a party to preserve error for purposes of appeal as a precondition for the trial court to consider the merits of a motion for new trial, because preservation of error is an inter-court systemic requirement rather than an intra-court one. Applying that rule, the Court concluded the court of appeals erred in holding that the trial judge abused his discretion by granting Herndon's motion for new trial on the ground that the court reporter failed to record a bench conference at which Herndon objected to the prosecutor's closing argument: at the time of the ruling, controlling precedent in the trial jurisdiction did not require an objection, and Herndon, as the prevailing party below, had no preservation obligation. The Court reversed and remanded to the court of appeals to address the State's remaining merits arguments, including whether any error affected Herndon's substantial rights under Rule 44.2. Judge Womack, joined by Presiding Judge Keller and Judge Meyers, dissented, contending that the sole ground for the new trial was legally invalid under Valle and that the trial court therefore abused its discretion.