# I N T HE CO UR T O F CR I M I NA L A P P E A LS O F T E X A S

N O . P D - 1 4 0 0 - 1 0

C H R I S T O P H E R C O N N L E Y D A V I S , A p p e l l a n t
v . T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W F R O M T H E F O U R T E E N T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

H A R R I S C O U N T Y Womack, J ., delivere d the opinion of the Court, in which, Mey ers, Price , J ohnson, Kea sler, He rvey , and Cochra n, J J ., joined. Keller , P.J ., filed a dissenting opinion.
The a ppellant was c onvicted of a g g rava ted robbe ry , and a jur y sentenc ed him to ten y ear s’ confine ment. The F ourtee nth Court of Appea ls affirme d. The a ppellant petitioned for r eview 1 

## from this Court, contending that the Court of Appe als err ed in holding tha t his voir dire question
was a n improper c ommitm ent question. We shall reve rse a nd rema nd to the Court of Appea ls for further considera

tion.

D a v i s v . S t a t e , 3 1 5 S
. W
. 3 d 9 0 8 ( T e x . A p p . – H o u s t o n [ 1 4 t h D i s t
. ] 2 0 1 0 )
. 1

## 2 I . Ba ckg round During voir dire, de fense counsel a sked the jury panel, “ L et’s talk about f actor s in [assessing] the sentenc e in a c ase of ag g rava ted robbe ry

with a dea dly

wea pon, what fa ctors do y ’all think are important? ” Without an objection from the State, the tria l court interjec ted, “[Counsel] , that’s a c ommitm ent question. You ca n’t ask that question.” Citi ng our opinion in Standefer v. State , the Court of Appe als upheld the trial judg e’s 2 

## ruling . “This question, althoug h open-e nded, is a c ommitm ent question bec ause it ‘a sks the prospec tive juror[s] to set hy pothetical par ameter s’ for the ir dec ision-making.” 3



## I I . Analy sis A commitment question is a question that commits a prospective juror to resolve or

to ref rain fr om resolving an issue a c erta in way afte r lea rning of a pa

rticular f act. Commi tment 4 

## questions are impermissible unless the law re quires a c ommitm ent, and the law does not requir e 5 

## a commitment on what fa ctors a jur or will consider dur ing se ntencing
. Howeve r, a tria l court 6 

## abuses its discre tion if it di sallows a prope r voir dire question. 7 

## The Court of Appe als’s holding direc tly contra dicts the dec ision of the Tenth Court of Appea ls in Vrba v. State
. I n Vrba , the Tenth Court held that the que stions “Why do y ou think 8

5 9
. S
. W
. 3 d 1 7 7 , 1 8 0 ( T e x . C r . A p p . 2 0 0 1 )
. 2 D a v i s , 3 1 5 S
. W
. 3 d a t 9 1 3
. 3 L y d i a v . S t a t e , 1 0 9 S
. W
. 3 d 4 9 5 , 4 9 8 ( T e x . C r . A p p . 2 0 0 3 )
. 4 S a n c h e z v . S t a t e , 1 6 5 S
. W
. 3 d 7 0 7 , 7 1 2 ( T e x . C r . A p p . 2 0 0 5 )
. 5 S e l l s v . S t a t e , 1 2 1 S
. W
. 3 d 7 4 8 , 7 5 7
- 5 8 , ( T e x . C r . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) ; S t a n d e f e r , 5 9 S
. W
. 3 d a t 1 8 1
- 8 2
. 6 B a r a j a s v . S t a t e , 9 3 S
. W
. 3 d 3 6 , 3 8 ( T e x . C r . A p p . 2 0 0 2 )
. 7 1 5 1 S
. W
. 3 d 6 7 6 ( T e x . A p p . – W a c o 2 0 0 4 , p e t
. r e f ’ d )
. 8

## 3

someone should be punished? ” and “ [W ]hi ch one of these [four theor ies of punishment] is most important to y ou in try ing to de termine how someone should be punished and how muc h punishment they

should rece ive? ” we re not c ommitm ent questions. Citi ng a footnote in our 9 

## opinion in Sells v. State , the Tenth Court conc luded that these que stions inqui red into “the 1 0 

## jurors’ g ener al philosophical outlook on the justice sy stem,” and tha t parties “a re g iven broa der latitude to ask questions of this sort.” 1 1 

## Sells was a

capital- murder a

ppeal. Sells’s counse l attempted to ask venire members how parole law would influenc e their se ntencing decisions, but the trial court r efuse d to allow the 1 2 

## questions. We determined that these questions “re late to how a pa rticular f act ( in this case, the minimum amount of time a c apital life de fenda nt must be incarc era ted bef ore be coming elig ible for pa role) mig ht influence jury delibera tions,” and we re thus commitment questions. We then 1 3 

## noted: These a

re not que stions, for example, that inquire ... into a prospec tive juror’s g ener al philosophical outlook on the justice sy stem (such a s whether the retribution, deter

renc e, or r ehabilitation is the prime g oal of the c riminal justice sy stem). The pa

rties ar e g iven broa der la titude to ask such g ener al bac kg round and philosophy

questions. 1 4

I d
. , a t 6 7 9
. 9 1 2 1 S
. W
. 3 d 7 4 8 ( T e x . C r . A p p . 2 0 0 3 )
. 10 V r b a , 1 5 1 S
. W
. 3 d a t 6 7 9 ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )
. 11 S e l l s , 1 2 1 S
. W
. 3 d , a t 7 5 5 ( A p p e l l a n t ’ s c o u n s e l s o u g h t t o a s k q u e s t i o n s s u c h a s “ W o u l d t h e m i n i m u m 12 l e n g t h o f t i m e a d e f

e n d a n t c o u l d s e r v e i n p r i s o n b e f o r e h e c o u l d b e p a r o l e d b e s o m e t h i n g y o u w o u l d w a n t t o k n o w i n a n s w e r i n g t h e s p e c i a l i s s u e s ? ” a n d “ W o u l d y o u b e m o r e l i k e l y , o r l e s s l i k e l y , g e n e r a l l y , t o v i e w a d e f e n d a n t a s a c o n t i n u i n g t h r e a t t o s o c i e t y i f y o u k n e w h e c o u l d n o t b e p a r o l e d f o r a m i n i m u m o f 4 0 y e a r s ? ” ) I d
. , a t 7 5 6
. 13 I d
. , a t 7 5 6 n . 2 2
. 14

## 4

Whil e this note in Sells was not par t of our holding in that case , it is an acc urate statement of the law, and the distinction i t draws c an be se en in this case. T he appe llant’s counsel a sked “w hat fac tors ... are important” in sentenc ing. T his did not ask the jurors how par ticular fa cts would influence their deliber ations. This was an inquiry into the jurors’ g ener al philosophies. I n its opini on, the Court of Appe als compar ed the a ppellant’s question to a que stion given
as an e x ample in Standefer : “What circumstanc es in y our opinion warr ant the imposition of the death pe nalty ? ” B ut the example from Standefer is disti ng uishable. The Standefer example asked jurors to define situations in which they would impose a spec ific sentenc e. Ha d this appellant’s counsel a sked jurors what circumstanc es would wa rra nt the maxi mum punishm ent for ag g rava ted robbe ry

with a dea dly

wea pon, that would have be en an imper missibl e commitment question. I nstead, the a

ppellant’s question soug ht to discover which f actor s would be important to jurors’ dec isions, without inquiring howthose fac tors would influence the dec ision. The que stion in t his case is a lso disti ng uishable fr om the death- penalty question beca

use sentenc ing f

or a c apital fe lony

has only two possible outcomes, life in prison without parole or the dea th penalty
. J urors must answe r spec ific questions either y es or no. I n this case, the 1 5 1 6 

## rang e of possible sente nces inc luded proba tion, possibl e ter ms of confine ment rang ing f rom five to ninety -nine y ear s, or life, a nd a possible fine of

up to $10,000. Where jurors will be r equire d to choose be tween only

two possibili ties, inquiries into what will influence their decision ar e more likely to require commitments than in sit uations where jurors ca n choose a

mong a broade r ra

ng e of options.

S e e T E X . P E N A L C O D E § 1 2
. 3 1
. 15 S e e T E X . C O D E C R IM . P R O C . a r t
. 3 7
. 0 7 1
. 16

## 5

Having found that the Court of Appe als err ed in deter mining that the a

ppellant’s question
was a commitment question, we rema nd this cause to that Court for f urther pr ocee dings.
Deliver ed: Marc h 30, 2011. Publis h.