### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00765- CR NO. 03-04-00768- CR

Da vid K e it h Eng le dow, A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF WILLI AMSO N COUNTY , 26TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NOS. 04 -400-K26 & 04 -993-K26 , HO NORAB LE BI LLY RAY STUB B LEF IELD, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
An eleve n-per son jury convicted appellant Da vid Keith Eng ledow of the offe nses of ag g ravated sexual assault and indec ency with a child. I n a sing le issue on appe al, appe llant
c omp la ins that th e tr ia l c ourt a bu se d it s d isc re tio n b y

“ de e min g ” a

jur or dis a ble d d ue to a de a th i n her f amily and allowingthe trial to continue with ele ven jurors. Finding that the trial cour t did not abuse its discre tion, we af firm the judg ments of conviction. At the end of the second day of a three -day trial, the trial judge advised the la wy ers that a juror’s husband was in his chambe rs. The judge repor ted that the juror’ s sister had “just g one2

into a coma, a

nd s h e’ s i n M o nterre y , Mexi co, and [the husband] is basically asking what the pr oc e dure is. ” He kn e w that w he n h e tol d h is w if e a bo ut h e r s ist e r’ s il ln ess , sh e wou ld wa nt t o immediately

depar t for Monterre y and “she won’t be fit to sit on the jury .” The court instructe d the lawy ers to re port befor e trial the ne x t morning to discuss the matter a fter the y had re viewed the law reg ardingjuror disability

and the c ourt had re ceive d a status re port from the juror
. Whe n c ourt

c on ve ne d th e ne xt mor

nin g , th e tr ia l ju dg e a dv ise d th e pa rt ie s:
We found out y esterda

y afte rnoon t hat M s. Gonzalez, one of the jurors, he r sister had g one into a coma , and we rec eived wor d this morning that she has passed awa y . I ’ve spoken per sonally to both her a nd her husba

nd, and I have c oncluded a s a re sult of that telephone call that she is distra ug ht, that she would be unable to conce ntrate a nd to serve a s a juror, a

nd I ’m dec laring her una ble to—or disabled a

nd, there fore , e xcu sin g he r, and

we wi ll c on tin

ue wi th e le ve n ju

ro rs . Def ense c ounsel stated, “[F]or the re cord I would have an obj ection to that juror be ing e x cused ba sed
o nd i s ab i l i t y . ” O n ap p ea l , ap p el l an t co n t en d s t h at t h e tr i al co u rt ab u s ed i t s d i s cr et i o n b y d ee m i n g, without evidence , that a juror w as disabled, a nd allowingthe trial to continue ove r the objec tion. The Te x as Constitut ion require s a j ury in a felony criminal t rial t o be composed of twelve membe rs. Tex. Const . art. V, § 13. It further provides that the leg islature may chang e or modify this provision t o authorize less than t he whole number of the j ury to rende r a verdic t if a juror dies or i s disabled from sitt ing. Id
. Article 36.29 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure trac ks the lang uag e of the constitution and provides that “a fter the trial of any felony case beg ins and a juror dies or, as de termined by

the judg e, bec omes disabled fr om sitt ing at any time befor e the c harg e of the cou rt is rea d to the jury , the re mainder of the jury shall have the power

to rende r the ve rdict.”3

Te x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . A nn . a rt . 3 6. 29 (a ) ( Wes t Su

pp . 2 00 5) . Ajur or

is d isa ble d w he n th e jur or

is phy sically , emotionally , or mentally impaired in some wa

y that hinders the juror’s a

bility to perfor m the duty of a juror
. B r o o k

s v . S t a te , 990 S.W .2d 278, 286 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The deter mination as to whether a

juror is disabled is within the discretion of the tr ial court. Id . Absent an abuse of that discre tion, we will not find rever sible err or. Id
.

I n a c ri min a l c a se , a

n a pp e llate c ourt may re ve rs e a tr ia l court ’s de c isi on fo r an a bu se of discre tion only

when it appe ars that the c ourt applied a n err oneous l ega l s t an dard, or when no
rea sonable viewof the re cord c ould support the trial court’ s conclusion under th e corr ect law

and the fa c ts v ie we d in

the lig ht m os t f

a vo ra ble to i ts l e g a l c on c lus ion . E ve n if the a pp e llate c ourt

wo uld have re a c he d a

dif fe re nt r e su lt, it s ho uld no t inte rc e de a s long a s the tr ia l cou rt ’s ru lin g wa s w ith in the “zone of r easona

ble disag ree ment.” Mo ntgom e ry v . S tat e , 8 10 S.W. 2d

37 2, 39 1 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ) ( op . o n r e h’ g ). Th e dis tr ic t c ourt a bu se s it s d isc re tio n w he n it arb itr ari ly

or un re a so na

bly excuses a juror w ithout refer ence to any g uiding r ules and princ iples. Id
. The initial question before us is whether the juror wa s disabled within the context of article 36.29(a)
. T ex . C o d e C ri m. Proc. Ann. ar t. 36.29(a). D isability

is not li mited to phy sical disease, but include s “any condition that inhibit s a juror f rom fully an d fa irly

perf orming the functions of a

juror.” Re

y es v . S tat e , 30 S.W .3d 409, 411 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The disabling condition may

result from phy sical illness, mental condition, or emotional state. Id
. Ap pe lla nt c omp la ins that the tr ia l c ourt a bu se d it s d isc re tio n b y

a llo wi ngthe tr ia l to continue with only

eleve n jurors without hear ing e vidence that the juror wa s indeed disabled.4

Al t h oug h there must be some showing of disability , the leg al standar d by which a tr ial court deter mines that a juror has become di sabled does not require that the trial cour t obtain a par

ticular ty pe of pr oof of the disa

bility . As this Court has st ated with reg ard to a prior version of this statute, “the L eg islature int en d ed t h at t he dec ision to continue the trial befor e ele ven jurors be a matter
re sti ngin t

he so un d disc re tio n of the tr ia l judg e , as i s h is d e te rm inatio n o f w he the r a jur or ’s dis a

bil ity is sufficient to pre vent his sitti ng in the case .” Cam pbellv . S

tat e , 6 4 4 S. W. 2 d

1 5 4 , 1 6 2 ( T e x. App.—Austin 1982, writ ref ’d). I n Al le n v . S

tat e , a ca se in which a

doctor’s note was offer ed i n t o ev i dence even tho ug h th e jur or

ha d n ot a c tua lly

be e n e xami ne d b y

the do c tor , th e tr ia l court ’s de c isi on to e xcu se
a jur or “ ba se d o n h is c on dit ion

a nd the ph y sic a l w e ll- be ingof the oth e r jur or s” wa s hel d not a n a bu se of di s c r e tion “under the circ umstances pr esente d.” 536 S.W.2d 364, 366-67 (Tex. Crim . App. 1976). I n Qu int an illa v . S

tat e , the trial cour

t’s decision to excuse a juror on the grounds that her husba nd ha d b e c ome ill the e ve nin g be fo re wa s n ot a n a bu se of dis c re tio n be c a

us e “ the tr ia l c ourt

wa s a ble to observe [the juror’ s] atti tude and de meanor , and could reasona bly have determined that [ she] was too dis tr a c te d b y

he r h us ba nd ’s ne e d f

or me dic a l c are to e ff

e c tiv e ly pe rf or m he r o bli g a tio ns a s a jur or .” 40 S.W. 3d 57 6, 58 1 ( Te x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 20 01 , p e t. r e f’ d) ; se e als o Cla rk v . S tat e , 500 S.W .2d 107, 108-09 (Te x . Crim. App. 1973) (excusing juror a s disabled who wa s emotionally upset by the death of fathe r-in-la w). In Ri c k

e tts v . S tat e , a juror called the court long distance to infor m it that her father ha d died. 89 S.W.3d 312, 316 (Tex . App.—For t Worth 2002, pe t
. ref

’d). She informed th e judge that it would ca use her g reat mental distress to miss her father ’s fune ral. The5

court of a ppeals found that the trial court “ verifie d the death o f h er fa t h er an d had the be nefit of speaking with he r on the telephone to judg e her demea nor.” Id . at 318 . I n th e se c a se s, the a pp e llate court w a s s a ti s f

ie d th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt e xc u s e d th e ju r o r b a s e d o n s o me s h o w in g , s o that the de te rm inatio n of dis a

bil ity wa s not ar

bit ra ry or un re a so na

ble . T he qu e sti on

on a pp e a l is lim ite d to whether the trial cour

t ha d some g uiding basis for deter mining that the juror’s circ umstances met the
s t a tu t o r y r e qu i r e m e n to f

a d i s a b i l i t y. He re , th e c ourt ’s e xer c ise of dis c re tio n h a d s up po rt

in t he re c or d. Th e re c or d r e ve a ls that the juror’ s husband had come to the c ourt to repor t that the juror’s sister ha d slipped into a coma. I n a telephone call the ne x t morning, the judge lear ned that she had died during the nig ht. The trial judge spoke direc tly to the juror and her husband to e valuate her demea nor and em o t i o n al s t ate. Although a

ppellant objecte d g ener ally “to that juror being excused based on disability ,” he did not object that the c ourt failed to summon the juror f or a he aringor that the disability was in any

way
a ruse. Se e Cla rk, 500 S.W .2d at 109 (“ Evidently they did not consider that the judg e wa s abusing his discretion, else a

n issue could have been ma de and evidenc e hear d, from which this Court mig ht de te rm ine wh e the r abus e of dis c re tio n e xiste d. ” ). We h old that th e tr ia l c ourt

did no t a bu se its discretion by

dismiss ing the juror. Although a

ppellant did not move for a mistrial or seek a continuance , on appea l he
c ha lle ng e d the c ourt ’s de c isi on to c on tin ue the tr ia l. H a vin g he ld t hat th e tr ia l c ourt

did no t a bu se its dis c re tion by dis mis sin g the jur or , w e ho ld t hat th e c ourt ’s de c isi on

to c on tin ue the tr ia l w ith eleve n jurors bec ause of

the juror’s d i s ability

did not amount to an abuse of disc retion. On the6

c on tr ary , o nc e the c ourt de te rm ine d tha t the jur or wa s disa ble d, it wa s re qu ir e d to c on tin ue the tr ia l. Se e Hi ll v . S

tat e , 90 S.W.3 d 308 , 315 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ); Car ril lo v . S tat e , 597 S.W .2d 769, 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).

Havingoverr

uled appe llant’s issue on appea l, we a ffirm the judg ments of conviction.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P atterson a nd Pury ear Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 16, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh