X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:At Wappler’s misdemeanor trial, the judge limited voir dire to 15 minutes. Wappler objected. Wappler also objected when the judge stated her intention to dismiss the panel, mistakenly believing that not enough venire members would remain for a jury after the parties exercised their peremptory challenges. The court of appeals found that Wappler was estopped from complaining about the voir dire limitation because he objected to the judge’s proposal to dismiss the panel. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. The issue here is different from that in Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Wappler does not complain on appeal that the trial judge erred in retaining the panel after he objected to any dismissal of the panel at trial. Instead, his complaint on appeal is that the trial judge erred in allowing only 15 minutes to conduct voir dire. Wappler did not effectively endorse the panel just because he objected to the panel’s dismissal. Instead, he correctly believed that there would be enough venire members from which to pick a jury if the panel remained. Wappler did not lead the trial judge into error by objecting to the panel’s dismissal. Additionally, the trial judge did not attempt to dismiss the panel in order to correct the ruling imposing a time limit on voir dire. Instead, she proposed dismissing the panel because she believed that once peremptory challenges were exercised, there would not be enough venire members left to constitute a jury. There is no indication in the record that the trial judge wanted to dismiss the panel to correct any error in limiting voir dire. Even if the panel had been dismissed, the trial judge still could have imposed the 15 minute time limit on voir dire on a new panel. So Wappler did not lead the court into error, because dismissing the panel would not necessarily have corrected any error in limiting voir dire. The court agrees with Wappler that the court of appeals misapplied the doctrines of estoppel and invited error. Wappler neither forfeited nor affirmatively waived his objection to not being allowed to further question the venire members. He kept urging the trial judge to let him continue to question the venire members even as she was dismissing those venire members not picked for the jury. Also, it was not Wappler’s motion to dismiss the panel. The trial judge proposed dismissing the jury of her own accord. The court finds that Wappler did not waive or forfeit his objection to the 15-minute limitation on voir dire. OPINION:Keasler, J., delivered the court’s opinion.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.