Murder conviction reversed over judge’s reasonable doubt comments
By Sarah Al-Shaikh
Click here for updates on this story
HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) — A man found guilty of murdering a man he accused of scamming him had his conviction overturned because of a judge’s comments about reasonable doubt.
According to court documents, the judge attempted to define reasonable doubt, which judges are not allowed to do under Texas law.
Defense attorney Doug Gladden said the comment was made in the murder case involving his client, Erick Aguirre, in Harris County’s 232nd District Court.
Court records identify the trial judge as Josh Hill.
Prosecutors said Aguirre fatally shot Elliot Nix in Houston’s East End for allegedly running a parking lot scam near a restaurant.
The defense argued Aguirre should have been acquitted on reasonable doubt since nobody saw him open fire and because the murder weapon wasn’t found.
A jury convicted Aguirre anyway and he was sentenced to 50 years in prison.
But on appeal, the focus shifted from the shooting to that comment which records show was made during jury selection.
According to court documents, the judge told potential jurors that one person’s definition of beyond a reasonable doubt might be 99%, while another’s could be 60% or a gut feeling.
The defense later argued that statement lowered prosecutors’ burden of proof.
In its opinion, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals wrote that for more than twenty years, judges have been repeatedly warned not to define reasonable doubt at all.
“In Texas, it is as clear as a bell that the trial judge cannot give any definition of reasonable doubt, particularly a statistical definition,” said Tom Hogan, Assistant Professor at South Texas College of Law Houston.
Hogan said most judges know that rule, but he said Texas is actually an outlier, and most states and federal courts provide juries some guidance on what reasonable doubt means.
“In all the years that I tried cases, the number one question that came back from the jury during deliberation was, what is beyond a reasonable doubt mean?” Hogan said.
But he said in Texas, jurors are simply told the defendant must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the definition is left up to them.
The appeals court said it found the judge never corrected the 60% comment, and that failure required reversal.
“They’re really sending a message to the other judges in Texas,” Hogan said. “Here’s the law. Follow it.”
The ruling now sends the case back to Harris County for a new trial.
ABC13 reached out to Judge Hill’s chambers for comment, but we have not heard back.
The Harris County District Attorney’s Office told ABC13 that at this time, they aren’t commenting on the case.
Please note: This story was provided to CNN Wire by an affiliate and does not contain original CNN reporting. This content carries a strict local market embargo. If you share the same market as the contributor of this article, you may not use it on any platform.