Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellant was charged with indecency with a child. During voir dire, the state offered a hypothetical specifically to one juror, although the facts of the hypothetical were presented before the entire panel, in which a 14-year-old jogger was touched on either the breast or genitals as she ran near the beach. At the hypothetical assailant’s trial, which occurred two years after the fictional incident, the victim was the only witness and her testimony was the only evidence offered against the assailant to convict him. After offering this hypothetical, the state asked, ( “. . . assume for me that you do believe her testimony beyond a reasonable doubt, you do believe her, and it meets all the elements of the charge, indecency with a child by contact, assume for me that you do believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, could you convict that hypothetical defendant of that charge or would you require some other witness or some other evidence?” After eliciting an affirmative response from the first juror, the state continued asking individual jurors a question similar to the one it asked the first juror. In some instances the state asked a variation of the following question: “One witness, if you believed her beyond a reasonable doubt could you convict at that point or would you require more?” In other cases, the state simply followed up one juror’s response by asking the next juror, “What do you think?” Several of the venire persons conceded that they would be unable to convict in this scenario and the state moved the trial court to strike them for cause. The trial court granted the state’s motions to strike these venire persons, and the appellant was convicted. On appeal, the appellant complained that the state improperly committed prospective jurors to convict based upon the question of whether they could convict if they believed the testimony of one witness beyond a reasonable doubt. The court of appeals analyzed the state’s questioning in light of Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001), which set forth a three-prong test to determine whether a voir dire question calls for an improper commitment. The court of appeals’ determined that the venire persons were validly challenged for cause by the state’s proper commitment questioning. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court of appeals did not improperly resurrect an outlawed legal principle. Following Castillo v. State, 913 S.W.2d 529 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995), the court asks whether the commitment question posed by the state demonstrated to the trial court that the venire person’s categorical refusal was predicated upon something other than his understanding of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If these jurors were challenged for cause simply because they needed more than one witness to convict, then they were invalidity challenged for cause. If they were challenged for cause because they could not convict based upon one witness whom they believed beyond a reasonable doubt, and whose testimony proved every element of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt, then they were validly challenged for cause. The language used by the state in its original question was appropriate under Castillo. The later questions appear to be merely short-hand renditions of the original question that properly elicited whether the venire persons could follow the law, and the court believes it is reasonable to presume the venire persons understood the later questions in this manner. The court of appeals was correct in holding that the commitment gave rise to a valid challenge for cause. OPINION:Price, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Keller, P.J., and Meyers, Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb, and Cochran, J.J., joined. Womack, J., dissented.

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.