Cain v. State (1997)
In Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) the Court explained that if concrete data necessary to conduct a harm analysis is absent, a harmless error test must nevertheless be conducted, and the absence of data is simply taken into account in determining whether or not the harmless error test is passed or failed. Cain, 947 S.W.2d at 264.
When the Court stated in Cain that some errors may "defy" harm analysis we did not mean that a harm analysis need not be conducted.
The Court meant simply that some errors will not be proven harmless because harm can never be determined due to the lack of data needed for analysis.
In Cain, the defendant complained of the trial court's failure to admonish him of the potential deportation consequences of his guilty plea pursuant to Art. 26.13(a)(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court held that the trial court's error was subject to harmless error analysis and further concluded that the trial court's failure to properly admonish the defendant was harmless because the defendant was a United States citizen and not subject to deportation. See id.In Cain, the Court relied on Article 38.04, V.A.C.C.P., to decide that Clewis' "factual sufficiency" standard requires appellate deference to the jury's credibility and weight determinations. See Cain, 958 S.W.2d at 407 (reviewing "court must defer to jury findings, and may find the evidence factually insufficient only where necessary to prevent manifest injustice").