Oursbourn V. State

We granted review in this case to clarify when a trial court has the duty to instruct the jury on the voluntariness of a defendant's statement in the absence of any request for such instructions.*fn1 We hold that when the evidence raises an issue of the "voluntariness" of a defendant's statement under Article 38.22,*fn2 the trial judge must give a general voluntariness instruction under Sections 6 and 7 of that article because it is the "law applicable to the case." But when the defendant does not request this statutorily mandated instruction, the trial court's failure to include it is reviewed only for "egregious harm" under Almanza.*fn3 In this case, a majority of the court of appeals held that, because appellant did not object to the jury charge or request any instruction on voluntariness, there was no error in the charge.*fn4 We conclude that the trial judge did err, and therefore we reverse and remand the case to the court of appeals to determine if appellant suffered "egregious harm" under Almanza.