Daniell v. State

In Daniell v. State, 848 S.W.2d 145 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993), the jury sent the trial court a note during punishment deliberations inquiring whether there were local correctional facilities available. The trial judge responded by note that there may be facilities available in nearby counties, but he was aware of no local correctional facilities. The court observed that in instances where the trial court responds substantively to a jury question during deliberations, the response is considered an additional or supplemental instruction. Id. (citing Haliburton v. State, 578 S.W.2d 726, 728 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979)). Referencing Article 36.14, the court held that the trial judge erroneously instructed the jury on a factual matter, not a legal matter, and reversed and remanded the case to the appellate court to conduct a harm analysis. Id.