### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN NO. 03-00-00570-CR Jimm y Wayne P arra, Jr., Appell ant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DIS TRICT NO. B-99-0234-S, HONORABLE BEN WOODWARD, JUDGE PRESIDING

A jury found appel

la nt Ji mm y W ay ne Parra, Jr., guil

ty of i ndecen cy with a ch il d by con tact. SeeTe x. P enal Co de Ann. § 21.11 (a)(1) (W est Sup p. 2001 ). The di strict court assess ed punishment at impriso nment for t hirt een yea rs. In his o nly point of e rr or , a ppe llantconten ds the court erred by ove rrul i ng hi s m oti on for mistr ial on t he gr ou nd tha t a j uror wi thh el d m ateri al i nf orm ati on du r ing vo ir d ire . We will a ffir m.

Dur ingvoir di

re, the prosecut or rec it ed the nam es of the com

pla in ant and other po ss ible wi

tne ss esan d a sked the pa ne l i sts i f the y knew an y of them. Fi ve pan elis ts in dic ated that t hey were ac qua i nte d w i th on e or mo r e o f t he po lice o ffice r s inv o lve d in this case. Each pan

elis t assured t he pros ecutor, a

nd l ater de f ense cou ns el , th at th

i s w oul d n ot af fe ct him o rhe rif se lec t ed fo rt he ju ry. One of the f

iv e panel is ts was la ter excused f

or cause because s

he h ad been sexual ly abused as a chi ld. The ot her f

our paneli sts did n ot serve on the j ury, b

ut i t is not sh own b y the re cord wh

ethe r they were perem ptoril y chal l enged or s i

m pl y outsi de th e “ stri

ke zon e.”1 The

prosec utor stated th at “c ourt sch ool” i s “ a v ery, very

informal eve nt whi

ch I conduct up on the th i rd f l oor. Th ere are nu merou s oth

er k i dsthe re. W e l et them se e w ha t a j ury box looks like , what the witness chai

r feel s li ke to sit i n. We ask

t hem the ir name and wher e t hey go t o s cho ol and what gr ade t hey are in. And t hey ta ke t ur ns do ing t hat . I t ’s ver y, ver y inf or mal. No t hingabout t he ir cas e i s discu sse d.” 2

The only witne ssescalled by t he St at e at t he gu ilt st age of t rial wer e t he co mplainant and her gr andmo t her . Aft er t he grandm ot her compl

eted her testim

ony, one of

the jurors i

nf ormed t he court that she had recogni zed the wi

tness an d “I am go ing to recogni

ze the l i ttle g i rl [com pl ai na nt].”In response to questions by

defen se counsel, the juror expl

ai ned that she worked as a vo lun t ee rat Ho pe Ho us e a s p ar t o f a c la s s as si gnm en t and had se en the two wi

tnes ses at “c ourt sch ool.” 1 They h

ad been am

ong t hi rty or so perso ns pr ese nt at t he school. The j uror knew that per so ns atte nd

i ng the school “ were ta ugh t how to g o t o cour t ” b ut she “ne ve rkn ew wh at t he ir si tua ti on was.” S he apparen

tly had n o personal contact with ei ther the complai

nan t o r her gran dm other. T he jur o rwa s c o nfid en t t ha t she co uld be fair an d imp ar t ial, and could base h er verdict on the evi dence. Appellant’s cou

ns el obj ec ted to the j uror remai ni ng on the j ury. He argued, “ [D ]e sp i te her ass uran ces to us . . . she ’s hu man an d s ympa t he t ic a nd ap pa r en t ly a ve ry nice pe r so n. I wo uld su bmit to the Court t hat that is goi ng to im pact her – her decisi on. . . . I feel , Your Honor, t hat

she ca nn ot hel p but have her decisi on based on s ome sy mpa thy b ecause of the pl

ace that she vol

unteered

. . . . [B]ec aus e of

the f act tha t she kne w the al l eged vi cti m . . . was there i

n order to take a Court class to prepare her to t estif

y i n som e adverse proceedi

ng, wo uld more than l

ike ly aff ect her – her de cis io n. ” T he co ur t o ve rrule d t he o bje ct io n a nd ap pe llant ’s su bse qu en t mo t io n fo rmist r ial.3 Wh en a j uror withh olds m aterial in form ation duri ng the voir di

re process, the parties aredeni ed t h e o pp o rt unit y t o exe rc ise t heir cha lleng es , t hus hamp er ing t heir se lec t io n o f a dis in terested and i

m partial j ury . Salazar

v. State , 562 S.W.2d 480, 482 (Tex. Crim . App. 1978 ) . In f orm ati on is withh el d, however, only

if counsel asks questions cal

cul ated to bri

ng out t hat informat ion. Jones

v. State , 596 S.W.2d13 4, 13 7 ( T ex . Cr im. A pp . 19 80 ) . I n t his ca se , the p an el i sts were as ke d on l y i f the y knew the com pl ai na nt a nd he r gran dm othe r by na me. The j uror i n q ue sti on t rut hfu lly did not re spo nd bec aus e she did no t kno w t heir names . T he pa nelists wer e no t ask ed a ny que st ions calcu late d t o r evea l their volu nt eer act ivities o r a ny co nnect ion t hey might have to victim ’s services organi

zations. Neither t he juror ’s volu nt eer wo rk at Ho pe H ou se no r he r ha ving see n t he wit nesse s at t he co ur t scho ol we re wit hheld du ring vo ir dire unde r t he circ umst ance s sho wn.

The juror ’s knowle dge that the com pl ai na nt an d he r gran dm other atten

ded the court school t old her only t hat t he co mplainant wa s t he alle ge d v ict im o f a c r ime. T his was a fact app ar ent to every me mb er of the j ury pan

el . The compl

ai nan t and he r g ra ndmo t her wer e amo ng many attend i ng th e court sc hool . The

j uror did not sp eak to the m at the c ourt scho ol, was not given any i nf orm ati on regardin g their cas e, and did not even l earn thei r na mes. T he r e w as no sho win g t ha t t his encounter ha d a ny pote nti al f or prej udi ceor b i ason

the juro r’s part. See Dec

ker v. St ate , 717 S.W.2d 903, 907 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 198 6) (o p. on r eh’g ) ( aft er t rial beg an, juro r r ealized he and co mplainant were c o-wor

ke rs ; n o sh owi ng of an y f ri en ds hi p; i nf orm ati on n ot material

). E ve n if it co uld be sa id that t he juror’s recogni

tion of the wi

tnesses was

withh el d durin g voir di re, t he dist rict co ur t ’s ac t ions were not sh own to ha ve depri ve d app el l an t of an i m partial j ury or a f ai r tri al . Id . at 908.4 The two o pin

ions ci ted by appella nt are dis tingui shab le . In Von Jan uary v

. State , 576 S.W.2d 43 , 45 ( T ex . Cr im. A

pp . 19 78 ), th

e p an el i st w h o b ec am e j ur y f ore man de l i b erate l y f ai l ed to disclo se d ur ing vo ir dire t hat he kne w t he cr ime victim and his family . Ap pellant do es no t co nt end that the juror i

n ourcas e co nscio usly or intent ionally withheld per t inent info rmat ion. In Franklin v. State , 12 S.W .3d

473 , 47 6 (T ex . Cr

i m . A pp. 200 0), a j uror

reali zed af ter t estim ony b egan

t hat she knew t he co mplaining witne ss. But t he t rial co ur t in Frank lin d id n ot pe

rm i t de f ense cou n se l to qu es t io n t he jur o rco nc er ning he rr ela t io nsh ip wi th the vi cti m . Id . a t 478 . I t was t he de nial of t he opp ortu n i ty t o q ues t ion t he j uror

reg ard i ng the ex ten t of pos si bl e p rej udi cetha t wa s deemed

err or by the c ourt of cri

m i na l appe al s. Id . a t 478 -7 9. In o ur cas e, app ellant w as g ive n a f ull and f air oppor tunity

to question the j uror t o learn i f s he m igh t be partial

to the Stat e. We o ver ru le the po int o f err or and a ffi rm t he judg ment o f co nvictio n.

__________________________________________ Mari ly n A boussie, Chief J

ustice Be f ore C hi ef Ju sti ceA bou ss i e, J us ti ce s Y ea

ke l an d Pa tters on Af fi rmed File d: June 7, 2001 Do No t Publis

h