The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued a significant ruling on November 12, 2026, clarifying the rules regarding the requirement to brief harm in appeals. The court's decision could impact how future appeals are handled, particularly in cases involving the admission of expert testimony. The ruling came in the case of Houston Samuel Hammons, who contested his conviction for assault against a family member.

The court ruled that a party does not waive an argument solely for failing to brief harm, reversing a previous decision by the Sixth Court of Appeals. This clarification is crucial for defendants who may have concerns about the admissibility of evidence in their trials.

Background

Houston Samuel Hammons was convicted of assaulting his girlfriend by impeding her breathing during a dispute over finances. The State of Texas charged him under the Texas Penal Code, which addresses offenses against family or household members. Following his conviction, Hammons was sentenced to twenty years in prison due to a prior conviction under the same statute.

During the trial, the State called Deputy Jon McCann to testify as an expert witness on strangulation and family violence. Hammons's attorney objected to McCann's qualifications, arguing that he lacked medical training to provide expert opinions on the physiological effects of strangulation. Despite the objection, the trial court allowed McCann's testimony, which contributed to Hammons's conviction.

After the trial, Hammons appealed the decision, claiming that the trial court improperly admitted McCann's expert testimony. However, the Sixth Court of Appeals ruled that Hammons had waived his argument because he failed to adequately brief the issue of harm caused by the alleged error.

The Ruling

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the Sixth Court of Appeals' decision, stating that a defendant does not need to prove harm to preserve an argument on appeal. The court emphasized that the alleged erroneous admission of expert evidence is typically considered non-constitutional error, reviewed under the substantial rights test.

The court stated, "To be sure, parties have a duty to adequately brief their points of error... But that duty extends to arguments where the party has the burden of persuasion to show error."

The judges involved in the ruling included Walker, Richardson, Yeary, Newell, McClure, Finley, and Parker. The court clarified that the burden of proving harm does not rest on the appellant or the State, stating that it is the appellate court's responsibility to assess harm by reviewing the entire record.

Furthermore, the court noted that the previous ruling by the Sixth Court of Appeals was in error when it found that Hammons's failure to address harm constituted a waiver of his argument. The court emphasized that the duty to review for harm is a systemic requirement that ensures the reliability of the verdict.

Impact

This ruling is expected to have significant implications for future appeals in Texas. By clarifying that defendants do not waive their arguments by failing to brief harm, the court has potentially opened the door for more thorough reviews of trial court decisions. This could benefit defendants who may have previously felt discouraged from appealing due to concerns about the burden of proving harm.

The ruling may also change how attorneys approach appeals in Texas. Legal representatives may feel more empowered to challenge the admissibility of evidence without the fear of waiving their arguments due to procedural issues. This could lead to more rigorous examinations of trial court decisions and the evidence presented during trials.

What's Next

The Sixth Court of Appeals will now reconsider Hammons's appeal in light of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' ruling. It remains to be seen whether Hammons will receive a new hearing or if the court will uphold his conviction based on other aspects of the case.