## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 1846- 09

A N TO N I O Z A V A LA C A R D EN A S , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE S ECON D CO URT O F AP PEALS

TARRA NT CO UNTY C OCHR AN , J. , del i vere d t he opi ni on of t he unan i m ous C ourt
. OP I NI ON A t appel l ant ’ s t r i al for aggr avat ed s exual as s aul t of a chi l d, t he defe ns e at t or neypos ed t he fol l ow i ng ques t i on dur i ng voi r di r e and a s ked ea ch veni r e mem ber t o r es pond: I w a n t y o u to a ss u m e th a t y o u h a v e f o u n d so m e b o d yg u ilt yo f se x u a l as sa u lt, aggr avat ed sexua l as s aul t of a chi l d. T heyi nt ent i onal l yor know i ngl ycaus ed t h e p e n e t r a t i o n o f

t h e s e x u a l o r g a n o f

t h e c o mp l a i n i n g wi t n e s s , o f t h e v i c t i m, b yth e m e a n s o f

th e se x u a l o rg a n o r a n yo th e r [ sic ] o r w ith a f in g e r o r w ith t o u c h i n g g e n i t a l t o g e n i t a l

. . . Cou l d y o u h o n e s t l y e v e r f a i r l y c o ns i der on an aggr avat ed s exual as s aul t of a c hi ld as li tt le as fi ve y ear s i n pr i s on and gi ve p rob ati o n as a n ap p rop ri ate p u n ishm en t[? ]”Cardena s Pag e 2

Car de na s v . S

tate , 305 S.W .3d 773, 780 (Tex. App.–For t Worth 2009). 1 Id. at 781-82. 2 Id. at 782. 3 Th e State ’s gro un ds fo r r e vie w a rea s f oll ow s: 4 1. Did the Court of Appe als err in determiningthat Appellant’s blanke t question to the entire ve nire pa

nel–with no follow up–was suff icient to prese rve e rror ? 2. Was Appellant’s question–which inquire d whether , in an intentional and knowingsexual a ssa ult of a c hil d, by me ans of dig ita l or g e nit a l pe ne tr atio n o f t

he vic tim , th e jur

y c ou ld ever g ive probation as an appr opriate punishment-a n improper c ommitm ent question? M or e t han fifty m ember s of t he pane l s t at ed t hat t heycoul d not cons i der t he mi ni m um p u n ishm en t. A fter the v o ird ir e w as c o m p let ed , ap p ell an t cha ll en g e d ea ch o f th ese juro rs for caus e, but t he t r i al j udge deni ed most of t hos e chal l enges . T he j ur ys ubs equent l yfound appel l ant gui l t yand s ent ence d hi m t o t w ent yy ear s i n pr i s on. T h e c o u r t o f

a p p e a ls h e ld th a t d e f e n se c o u n se l’s s in g le v o ir-d ire q u e stio n

– in

co m b ination w it h p ri o r discu ssion s o f th e p erti n en t l aw b ythe ju d g e a n d the p rose cu tor– pr es er ved er r or conce r ni ng t he deni al of appel l ant ’ s chal l enges for caus e. I t al s o hel d t hat 1

couns el ’ s ques t i on w as a pr operone bec aus e t he l aw r equi r es j ur or s t o be ab le t o cons i der th e f u ll r a n g e o f

p u n ish m e n t. It re v e rse d th e c a se b e c a u se th e trial ju d g e a b u se d h is

2 di s cr et i on bydeny i ng appel l ant ’ s chal l enges for caus e t o j ur or s who u n e q u i v ocal l ys t at ed t hat t heycoul d not cons i dert he ful l r ange of puni s hm ent
. W e gr ant ed t he St at e’s p et i t i on for

3 dis cret i on aryrevi ew t o ad dress t hese ho l dings. W e agree w i t h the cou rtof ap peals

. 4 I. A ppel l antw as i ndi ct ed for t hr ee count s of aggr avat ed s exual as s aul t of a chi l d and aCardena s Pag e 3

Th e jud g e e xpla ine d th at a pp e lla nt 5 is charg ed with the off

ense of ag gravated sexual assault of a c hild. The rang e of punis hme nt f

or that of fe ns e is n ot l e ss t

ha n f iveno r m or e tha

n 9 9 ye ars or

lif e in th e In s t i tut i o n a l D i v i s i o no f th e T e x a s D e p artm e nto f C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e . In addition to that, a fine of up to $10,000 may be asse ssed. The r ang e of punishment for the off

ense of indece ncy

with a child is not less than two nor more than 20 year s in the Institut ional Division of the Texas Depar tment of Criminal J ustice. And in addition to that a fine of up to $10,000 may

be asse ssed in that case also. Probation is an option if the sentenceis ten year s or less. The de fenda nt may be grante d probation if, one, hehas neve r bef ore be en convic ted of a

felony offe nse and the jury

deter mines that the defe ndant dese rves pr obation. The prose cutor e x plained that indec ency with a child is a sec ond-degreefelony

. 6 Th is i s f or tou c hin g . It c an e ve n b e tou c hin gtheprivate are a s, thebr e a sts , a nu s, s i ngl e countof i ndece ncyw i t h a chi l d. T he cha r ges s t emm ed from an i nci dent i n w hi ch C ar denas ’ s aun t di s cover ed herfour

- y ear - ol d daught erand appe l l ant t oget her i n bed. Suspe ct i ng t hats om et hi ng l as ci v iou s w as afoot , s he dr ew back t he bedc over s t o fi nd her daught er and appe l l anti n a s t at e of undr es s ; t he chi l d’ s pant s an d u n d erw earw er e pul l ed d o w n , a n d a p p e l l a n t w a s h a s t i l y r e f a s t e n i n g h i s t r o u s e r s . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e c h i l d ’ s t e s t i m o n y, appel l ant r emoved he r under w ear , ful l y expos ed hi s peni s , and r ubbed hi s peni s agai ns t her g e n i t a l s . Ap p e l l a n t g a v e p o l i c e a wr i t t e n s t a t e me n t a d mi t t i n g t o “ p u t [ t i n g ] myh a n d d o wn th e f ro n t o f h e r p a n ts ” a n d “ ru b b in g c ir c le s o n th e to p o f h e r v a g in a .” A fter the v en ir e p an el w as sw o rn in an d b ef o re th e a ttorn ey s b eg an their vo ir -dire exami nat i on, t he t r i al j udge expl ai ned t he gene r al l aw , i ncl udi ng th e p e r t i n e nt l aw conce r ni ng t he ra nge of puni s hm ent
. D ur i ng t he S t at e’ s voi r di r e, t he pros ecut or as ked t he pane l for 5

a s how of hands o f thos e veni r e mem ber s w ho coul d not cons i der t he ful l r ange of puni s hm entfor i ndece ncy w i t h a chi l d. Sever al j ur or s w ho r ai s ed t hei r hands t o i ndi cat e t hat 6Cardena s Pag e 4

the fe male sexual org an with your hand. And it can eve n be over the clothes. An d w e ta lke d a

bo ut t hat. It’ s b e tw e e n a

min imum of

tw o ye ars a ll the wa

y up to 20 year s in prison and also up to a $10,000 fine

. . . . So between–f

or indec ency

with a child, ca

n ever yone on my

right, your left, keep an open mind and c onsider the minimum of two all the way up to 20 ye ar s i np r i s o n ? C ane v e r yo n e d o th at ? [Re sp on se by

a sh owof ha nd s] O k ay . An d

Iamg o i n gt o f

l i p i tar o un d

. I s th e r e anyo n e wh o c ann o td o th at ? Pa n e l m e mb e r s numb e r s s e v e nan d tw e nty- s ix. 7 t hey coul d not cons i dert he ful l r ange of puni s hm ent w er e t hen exa m i ned i n m or e det ai l

. T he defe ns e l at er chal l enged t w o of t hos e veni r emem ber s beca us e t heyw er e unabl e t o cons i der 7
t he ful l r ange of

puni s hm ent , and t he St at e agr eed w i t h t hos e cha l l enges . T h e pr os ecut or th e n e x p lain e d th e law c o n c e rn in g th e p u n ish m e n t f o r a g g ra v a ted se x u a l as sa u lt o f a c h ild and r epea t edl yt ol d t he j ur or s t hat t hey m us t “cons i der t he ful l r ange of puni s hm ent
. . . . Y ou do n’t hav e t o g i ve it

. Y ou hav e t o co nsi der it.

. . . I a m ju st tel l i ng y ou w hat t he law say s. It sa y s f o r y o u to b e o n a ju ry , to s it h e re a n d m a k e a d e c is io n . . . , y o u h a v e to b e a b le to

c o n s id e r t h e f

u ll r a n g e .” D ur i ng hi s voi r di r e, defe ns e couns el agai n expl ai ned t he r ange of puni s hm ent for t he

cr i m es char ged and t he r equi r ement t hat al l j ur or s m us t be abl e t o cons i der t hat ful l r ange. H i s fi nal ques t i on as ked w het hert he pane l m ember s coul d “hones t l y ever fai r l ycons i deron an aggr avat ed s exual as s aul t of a chi l d as l i t t l e as fi ve y ear s i n pr i s on and gi ve pr obat i on as

a n a p p r o p r iate p u n ish m e n t[ ? ]” D e f e n se c o u n se l as k e d e a c h in d iv id u a l v e n ire m e m b e r to

a n sw e r e ith e r “ Y e s” o r “ N o ” to th e q u e stio n . F if ty -tw o o f th e m re sp o n d e d th a t th e yc o u ld not cons i dert he mi ni m um s ent ence . C ouns el di d not s eek any el abor at i on on t hei r r eas oni ngCardena s Pag e 5

Th e pr os e c uto r a

nd thede fe ns e us e d v e ry

sim ila r l angua g e and

te c hn iqu e s in 8 questioning the panel r eg ardingthe ra ng e of punishment, but the prose cutor a sked the pa nel members to voluntarily

raise the ir hands if they

could not follow the law c oncer ning the rang e of punishment, while the defe nse counse l asked e very panel membe r to respond “ Yes” or “N o.” After the def ense ma de its first challeng e for cause , the prosec utor stated, 9 J udg e, we would object to that. Counsel asked the wrongquestion, is the bo tto m li ne . And

fr ank ly , to make it e a sie r, Ia ssume he wi ll c ha lle ng e fo r c a us e nume ro us oth e r j ur or s. Th e re ’s so me that w e wo uld a gre e to, but f

or themos t part, he asked the wrongquestion, and that’s the bottom line. His question very sp e c if ic a lly wa s, “ Can you

ho ne stl y e ve r f a ir ly c on sid e r a s li ttl e a s f

iveye ars in prison and g ive probation as an appr opriate punishment,” a nd that’s not what the law provide s. And fra

nkly , Ithink this court ha s been pr esent in other jur y selec tions where D efe nse counse l asked the wrongquestion. And the re al qu e sti on that is su pp or te d b y c a se law i s if

thefa c ts j us tif

y it a nd thelaw a llo ws it, can you consider it. And c ounsel very specific ally

asked him to enter

tain a hy pothetical and to imag ine fa ctual cir cumstance s wherethey could g ive that, and that’s inappropriate. It’s the wrongquestion. And we w ould agreeto the challeng es for

causewhich I

anticipate a

re c oming on the D efe nse par t for No. 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 26, 34, 52 and 68. Eve ryone else challeng ed under that question, we would object to. and made no at t empt t o r ehabi l i t at e t hem w i t h fur t her exami nat i on. 8 T h e d e f e n se c o u n se l m a d e f

o rty -six c h a llen g e s f

o r c a u se b a se d o n th e ju ro rs’ in a b ili ty t o cons i der t he ful l r ange of puni s hm ent
. O f t hos e for t y - s i x chal l enges , el even w er e gr ant ed

w i t h t he St at e’ s cons entor l ack of obj ect i on, s i x w er e gr ant ed overt he St at e’ s obj ect i on, and t hi r t ychal l enges w er e deni ed. 9 B o th side s the n m ad e the irp ere m p torystr ikes

. A f ter using all o f h is pe rem p tory strik e s, d e f

e n se c o u n se l as k e d f

o r a d d iti o n a l p e re m p to rie s a n d e x p lain e d th a t n in e o f h is

s t r i kes had been used on j ur or s w ho s houl d have been r emoved for caus e. H e s t at ed t hathe

w oul d have s t r i cken th r e e o f the empanel ed j ur or s had addi t i onal per empt or ychal l enges been g ran ted. T h e t ri al jud g e de n ied his req u est fo r m o re st ri k es, ho w ev er, an d the ju ryw as sw o rnCardena s Pag e 6

Appellant’s motion for a

direc ted ver dict of not guilty was grante d on one of the 10 ag gravated sexual assault counts. Cardenas , 305 S.W .3d at 776. 11 Id. at 780 (“ [W ]e hold that under the limited circumstanc es of this ca se, such a follow- 12 up question was not re quired. The jury had pre viously

been r epeatedly

informed by

the trial cour

t and the State that a

jury must act without prejudice a nd that the law c ommands that they consider the minimum puni shment reg ardle ss of their per sonal views, and in that c ontext , the pane l members’ answe rs to the question at issue demonstrated that they could not do so.”). Id . (“To pr eser

ve er ror on his cha lleng es for

cause , [appellant] had to (1) asser t a clea r 13 and spec ific cha lleng e for cause , (2) use a per emptory challeng e on the c omplained-of venire member, ( 3) exhaust all of his pere mptory challeng es, (4) reque st and be de nied additional pe re mpt or

y c ha lle ng e s, and

(5 ) b e fo rc e d to a c c e pt a

n o bje c tio na

blejur or on thejur y . [App e lla

nt] did all of these thing s; the State has not argued other wise.”) (interna l citations omit ted). in o v e r d e f

e n se c o u n se l’s o b

jec tio n . U lti m a tely , the ju ry c o n v icte d a p p e llan t o f tw o c o u n ts of aggr avat ed s exual as s aul t of a c hi l d and a s i ngl e countof i nd ec en cy w i t h a chi l d and 10

a ss e ss e d a se n ten c e o f

tw e n tyy e a rs in p riso n o n e a c h c o u n t. O n appea l , appel l antas s er t ed t hat “t he t r i al cour t er r ed bydeny i ng hi s chal l enges for

caus e t o t hi r t ym ember s of t he j ur y panel beca us e t heyi ndi cat ed t hat t heycoul d not cons i der th e f u ll ran g e o f

p u n ish m e n t f

o r h is c h a rg e s.” In h o ld in g th a t er ro r w a s p ro p e rly 11 pr es er v e d , t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s n o t e d t h a t t h e v e n i r e p a n e l was s u f f i c i e n t l y i n f

o r me d of a ju ro r’s o b lig a tio n to c o n sid e r th e f u ll sp e c tru m o f

p u n is h m e n t p rio r to th e d e f e n se v o ir d ir e. F u rt h er, t h e co u rt h eld th at ap p ell an t had m et t h e p rese rva ti o n req u ir em en ts fo r a 12 deni ed cha l l enge f

or caus e. W hi l e t he cour t agr eed t hat t he defe ns e pos ed a c om m i t m ent

13 ques t i on t o t he veni r e pane l , i t hel d t hat t he ques t i on “w as not i m pr oper ” undert he St andef erCardena s Pag e 7

Sta nd e fe r v . S tate , 59 S.W .3d 177, 182 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (“[F]or a c ommitm ent 14 qu e sti on to b e pr op e r, on e of

thepo ssibleans we rs to t hat qu e sti on

mus t g iveri se to a

va lid challeng e for

cause .”). Cardenas , 305 S.W .3d at 782. 15 Id. at 781-82. 16 J oh ns on v . S

tate , 982 S.W .2d 403, 405-06 (Te x . Crim. App. 1998). 17 Fu lle r v . S

tate , 829 S.W .2d 191, 200 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). 18 Se eMa rti n v . S

tate , 2 00 S.W. 3d

63 5, 64 0 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ) (bo th t he de fe ns e 19 and the State a

re pe rmitted to voir dire potential jurors c oncer ning the rang e of punishment for fe lony and mis de me ano r d

ri vin g -whil e -i nto xicate d c ha rg e s) ; Ma thi

s v . S tate , 576 S.W .2d 835, 839 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). Da v is v . S

tate , 3 13 S.W. 3d

31 7, 34 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 10 ) ( “ Whe n th e law r e qu ir e s a 20 cer tain ty pe of c ommitm ent from juror s, such as c onsideringthe full rang e of punishment, an attorney may ask prospe ctive jurors to c ommit t o followingthe law in that re g ard.” ). test b ec au se th e q u esti o n clos ely tr ac k ed the ind ict m en t an d d esc ri b ed the o ff en se’s “ co re 14 el ement s . ” T he cour t of ap p e a l s , t her efor e, r ever s ed appe l l ant ’ s convi ct i ons and r emanded

15 th e c a se s f

o r a n e w trial. 16 II. B ot h t he St at e and de fens e ar e ent i t l ed t o j ur or s w ho can c ons i der t he ent i r e r ange of puni s hm ent for t he par t i cul ars t at ut or yoffe ns e– i.e
. , fr om t he maxi m um t o t he mi ni m um and al l poi nt s i n bet w een. J ur or s m us t be abl e t o cons i der bot h “a s i t uat i on i n w hi ch t he 17

m in im u m p e n a ltyw o u ld b e a p p ro p ria te a n d

. . . a situ a tio n in w h ich th e m a x im u m p e n a lty

w oul d be appr opr i at e. ” T her efor e, bot h side s m ayques t i on t he pane l on t he r ange of 18 puni s hm ent a n d ma yc o mmi t j u r o r s t o c o n s i d e r t h e e n t i r e r a n g e o f p u n i s h me n t f

o r t he 19
sta tu to ry o f

f e n se . A q u e stio n c o m m itt in g a ju ro r to c o n sid e r th e m in im u m p u n ish m e n t is 20Cardena s Pag e 8

See Stande

fer , 59 S.W .3d at 181 (“ [Q] uestions conce rninga juror’ s ability to consider 21 the full rang e of punishment for a par ticular off ense me et . . . the def

inition of commitment questions but are ne verthe less proper .”). See , e.g. , Ba ra

jas v . S tate , 9 3 S. W.3 d 3 6, 38 , 4 0 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ) ( imp ro pe r t o 22 ask whe ther juror s could be impartial in a c ase involvinga victim who was e ight to ten year s old); Mo orev . S

tate , 999 S.W .2d 385, 406-07 (Te x . Crim. App. 1999) (improper to ask juror, who stated that she c ould consider youth as a mitigating f actor , whether

she would consider

a nin e te e n- or

tw e nty-ye ar- old

a “ youth”fo r p ur

po se s o f i mpo sin gthede ath p e na lty ); Pe nr y v. Sta te , 903 S.W .2d 715, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (improper to a sk whether victim-impact evidenc e would pre vent a juror from asse ssing a

life sentenc e). See B arajas , 93 S.W .3d at 38 n.1. 23 Se eW ill iam s v . S

tate , 7 73 S.W. 2d

52 5, 53 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 88 ) ( ho ldi ngthat a 24 juror is biased a s a matter of law if he unequivoca lly

expresses an inability

to consider f

ive year s probation as possible punishment for the lesser- included off ense of murder in a

capital- murder bot h pr operand per m i s s i bl e. H ow ever , couns el veer s i nt o i m per m i s s i bl e comm i t m ent 21 ques t i ons w hen he a t t empt s t o comm i t a veni r emem ber t o cons i der t he mi ni m um s ent ence bas ed on spec i fi c evi dent i ar y fac t s . For exampl e, a par t ym ayas k t he pot ent i al j ur or i f he 22 coul d cons i dert he mi ni m um of fi ve y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent i n a m ur der cas e, but he may not

as k i f t he j ur or coul d cons i derfi ve y ear s i n pr i s on i n a ca s e i n w hi ch t he St at e al l eged t hat the d ef en d an t “t o rt u red , g arro ted, po ison ed , an d p ickled ” the v ict im

. T h e n o n stat u tory

m an n er in w h ich t h e d ef en d an t w as a ll eg ed to h av e c o m m it ted th e o ff en se a d d s ev iden ti ary fa cts p ec u li ar to the ca se o n tr ial

. T h at qu esti o n , b ec au se it g o es b ey o n d the s tat u tory elem en ts an d stat u torym an n er o r m ea n s, is i m p rop er u n d er St andef er . 23 O nce a j ur or expr es s l yadmi t s hi s bi as agai ns t a phas e of l aw u p o n w h ich bot h t he S tate a n d d e f

e n se a re e n tit led to re ly , a s u f f icie n t f o u n d a tio n h a s b e e n la id to su p p o rt a chal l enge f

or caus e. A j ur or w ho s t at es t hat he cannot cons i der t he m i ni m um puni s hm ent

24Cardena s Pag e 9

tr ia l) ; se eals o J

or da n v . S tate , 6 35 S.W. 2d

52 2, 52 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 82 ) ( re ve rs ibl e e rr or to deny a def endant’ s challeng e for

cause ag ainst a juror who could not consider probation for the lesser- included off

ense of murder in a

capital murde r ca se). Cum bo v . S

tate , 7 60 S.W. 2d

25 1, 25 5- 56 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 88 ); Pi e rc ev . S tate , 696 25 S.W .2d 899, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (def endant ha s the right to challeng e for causeany juror who c ould not give the minimumpunishment, including probation). Se eMo orev . S

tate , 999 S.W .2d 385, 400 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (“When the r ecord 26 ref lects that a ve nireman va cillates or e quivocates on his ability to follow the law, the r eviewing court must defe r to the trial cour t.”). f o r a p a rticu lar sta tu to ry o f f e n se is su b

jec t to a c h a llen g e f

o r c a u se . T h e o p p o sin g p a rty

25

or t r i a l j u d g e ma y t h e n e x a mi n e t h e j u r o r f u r t h e r t o e n s u r e t h a t h e f u l l y u n d e r s t a n d s and appr eci at es the p os i t i on t hathe i s t aki ng, but unl es s t her e i s fur t her cl ar i fi cat i on or vaci l l at i on by t he j ur or , t he t r i al j udge must gr ant a cha l l enge f or caus e i f t he j ur or s t at es 26 th a t h e c a n n o t co n sid e r th e f u ll ran g e o f

p u n ish m e n t. I I I . A . P res ervat i on In its f irst g ro u n d f

o r re v iew , th e S ta te c o n ten d s th a t th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls e rre d in hol di ng t hatappel l ant pr oper l y pr es er ved t he t r i al cour t ’ s deni al of hi s chal l enges for caus e. T he St at e as s er t s t hatappel l antfai l ed t o as k fol l ow - up ques t i ons t o confi r m t hat t he pane l

w as ful l y aw ar e of t he l aw ’ s r equi r ement s . T her efor e, acc or di ng t o t he St at e, he for fei t ed th e is su e . W e d isa g re e . W h e n th e v e n ire m e m b e rs h a v e re p e a ted lyb e e n to ld o f th e ir ob l i gati on un der t he law t o con si der the full range o f pu nis hm ent for t he st at utor yoff ense

a n d t h e r e i s n o i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e i r c o n f

u s i o n , t h e c o mp l a i n i n g p a r t yn e e d n o t a s k a n yf o l l o w-Cardena s Pag e 10

The prose cutor e x plained, 27 L e t me sh owyou

wh at th e re qu ir e me nts of pr ob atio n a

re . Pr ob atio n, fi rs t of all, it’s a c ourt order ed super vision of a per son who has bee n found guilty . The se nte nc e is s us pe nd e d. In a c a se you wo uld have to s ay , o ka

y , w e he ard

thefa c ts and he is de servingof ten year s or less. And not only that, we be lieve for whateve r re ason–I

don’t know what the situation would be, but you would believe in this si tuation that he was de servingof not g oing to prison and havingthat sentenc e suspende d. Whil e he is on probation if he violates the conditions, the judgemay

revokethe probation and order the def endant to ca

rry out the rema inder of his sentenc e in prison or in custody . The re quirements: You ca nnot have e ver been c onvicted of a

felony befor e. And then prior to the trial eve n starting , the de fe nd ant h a s to fi le an a

pp lic atio n o r a

pe tit ion . And

thi s is wh at e lseyou

wo uld have to h ave : T he jur

y wo uld have to u na nim ou sly a gre e that th e se nte nc e sh ou ld be te n ye ars or

le ss. Ok ay ? Yo u w ou ld h ave to a gre e on that. I n a dd iti on

to agree ing on that, the defe ndant must deserve , he must deser ve probation. And elig ibility , just because he is elig ible for it, he doe sn’t have a prior fe lony , doesn’t m e anh e i s e nt i t l e d

t o i t
. O k ay? So what I ’m talkingabout her e is that included in the ra ng e of punishment of five to 99 year s or life for ag gravated sexual assault and two to 20 year s for indece ncy with a child is also, if these thing s are proven, the possibili ty of probation. Oka

y ? So the question Ihave f or you, since you haven’ t hear d any evidenc e, ca

n you consider the full rang e of punishment? Can you consider the full rang e of punishment? And re member, in orde r for the lower end, including probation, these thing s would have to be there . And most importantly , the d e f e n d antw o u l d

h av e t o d e s e r

v e p r o b at i o n . An d

gu e s s wh o g e t s t o d e c i d e th at ? Yo u d o. Yo u d o. So, no t ha vin ghe ard

any thi ngmor e at th is p oint, I kn owit’ s a long pr ocess he re, on my

left, your right, this section, can you guy s consider the fu ll r ang e of

punis hme nt f

or bo th c a se s si nc e you

have n’ t he ard

any e vid e nc e ye t, u p q u esti o n s reg ard ing their fu ll an d co m p let e un d erstan d ing o f t h e l aw to prese rve erro r. T he j ur ypool as s embl ed forappel l ant ’ s t r i al had bee n t w i ce a ppr i s ed of t he ap p li ca b le ran g e o f p u n ishm en t, o n ce b ythe tri al j u d g e a n d a g a in b ythe S tat e, be fo re defe ns e couns el ’ s voir d ir e. T her e w as no ambi gui t yor confus i on i n how t he l aw w as

e x p lain e d b ye ith e r th e trial ju d g e o r p ro se c u to r. In d e e d , th e S ta te w a s th e f irst p a rtyto b ro a c h th e to p ic o f

p ro b a tio n , p r o v id in g th e ju ry w ith a d e taile d e x p lan a tio n o f its i nt r i cac i es . T he St at e w as al s o t he fi r s t par t yt o as k i f t he pane l m ember s coul d cons i der

27Cardena s Pag e 11

a ll right, and

a ff or d h im h is rights ? One juror

asked, “ I s this probation on top of the five year s or is it probation of five 28 ye ars ? ” De fe ns e c ouns e l r e sp on de d, “ Th e le ngth o f p ro batio n is de te rm ine d b y thejud g e . H is sentenc e is five year s and you rec ommend probation.” That juror then aske d, “So would the p ro b at i o nb e up t o fi v e y ears ? Or wo u l d i tb e o nt o p o f th e f

i v e y ears ? ” T h e tri al j u d ge intervene d and said, “ Ithink [ the prosec utor] indi cate d earlier that the sente nce w ould be serve d on probation, then he would serve the five year s in the penitentiary .” Another juror then sa id that he did not hear

the judg e’s state ment, and counse l expl ained, “ It would be a se ntence in prison, but prob atio n f

or a c e rt a in l e ngth o f t ime that’ s d e te rm ine d b y thejud g e . And

if the y vio late that, then they would serve that time in prison.” Be fore trial, appe llant filed a motion for probation and swore that he had ne ver be en 29 c o nv i c t e d o f a f e l o ny. th e e n tire r a n g e o f

p u n ish m e n t. B u t th e S tate sim p ly a sk e d f o r j u ro rs to ra ise th e ir h a n d s if t hey cou l d not con si der t he ful l range of pu nis hm ent. F ew vo l un t eered. W hen d e fense

couns el pos ed hi s q ues t i on t o eac h j ur or i ndi vi dual l y , t w o of t hem aske d for fur t her

e x p la n a tio n , w h ic h c o u n s e l th e n g a v e . A ll o f th e o th e rs s im p ly an s w e re d “ Y e s ” o r “ N o .” 28 I t i s a fa i r i nfer ence t hatt hos e j ur or s w ho di d not as k ques t i ons or s eek f ur t her cl ar i fi cat i on

u n d erstoo d w h at pro b ati o n is, that p rob ati o n w as an o p ti o n in this case , an d that fiv e y ea rs 29 i n pr i s on or on pr obat i on w as t he mi ni m um puni s hm ent avai l abl e. T her efor e, any one w ho

r es ponded i n t he nega t i ve t o couns el ’ s ques t i on as t o w het her t hat j ur or coul d cons i der “as l i t t l e as fi ve y ear s i n pr i s on and gi ve proba t i on as an appr opr i at e puni s hm ent ” expr es s ed a bi as agai ns t a phas e of l aw on w hi ch t he def en se w as ent i t l ed t o r el y . A bs ent anyfur t her ques t i oni ng byt he t r i al j udge ort he pr os ecut or t o cl ar i fyeac h j ur or ’ s s t at ed pos i t i on, t he j udge w as r equi r ed t o gr antappel l ant ’ s chal l enges for caus e. I n t hi s cas e, t her e w as no need f or defe ns e couns el t o as k t he pane l m ember s a fur t herCardena s Pag e 12

306 S.W .3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). 30 Id. at 295. 31 Id . at 297. 32 Id . at 298. 33 See W illiams , 773 S.W .2d at 536. 34 Pi e rc ev . S

tate , 696 S.W .2d 899, 902-03 (Te x . Crim. App. 1985) (re jectingState’s 35 argument that defe nse counse l’s voir dire que stion concer ning the minimumpunishment was too br oa d to pr e se rv e e rr or , a nd statin g“ ha d th e State be e n c on c e rn e d a bo ut t his de fi c ie nc y

in ques t i on, as t he St at e ur ges . T h e S tat e cit es t o G a rd n e r v . S ta te for t he pr opos i t i on t hat 30 appel l ant m us t s how t hateac h veni r emem ber “under s t ood t he r equi r ement s of t he l aw and coul d not over come hi s pr ej udi ce w el l enough t o fol l ow t he l aw ” and ar gues t hat , w i t hout 31 fol l ow - up ques t i ons , t hi s bur den has not been met

. B ut i n G ar dnert he i s s ue w as one of t he

u n c e rta in tyw ith w h ich th e p a rticu lar v e n ire m e m b e rs e x p re ss e d th e ir a b ili tyto c o m p lyw ith th e la w . O n e v e n ir e p e rs o n w a s d e s c ri b e d a s “ c h a n g [ in g ] h e r m in d w ith e a c h q u e s tio n ,” 32

w hi l e anot her w as i dent i fi ed as a “cl as s i c vaci l l at i ng j ur or . ” N o s uch vac i l l at i on pl agued 33
t he j ur y panel i n t hi s cas e. A j ur or w ho–aft ert he r ange of puni s hm ent has been e xpl ai ned to h im a s it w a s in th is c a se b yth e trial ju d g e , the p ro se c u to r , a n d th e d e f e n se c o u n se l– unequi vocal l ys ay s “N o” w hen aske d i f he can cons i der t he m i ni m um s ent ence has s t at ed i n t he m ost con cret e t erm s t hat he cann ot fol l ow t hat l aw . A t t hat poi nt, cou nsel need ask not hi ng m or e. T he j udge or t he oppos i ng par t y coul d expl ai n t he l aw fur t her i n t he hope 34

o f h a v in g th e ju ro r re c o n sid e r h is p o sitio n , b u t, ab se n t su c h re h a b ili tatio n , tha t ju ro r is

s ubj ectt o a cha l l enge f

or caus e. 35Cardena s Pag e 13

questioning, the y

had ample oppor

tunity to addre ss this specific question to both [ venire members]. As it was, the State made no attempt to question either juror a bout probation.”). Th e State a lso a sse rt s th at a pp e lla nt’ s hy po the tic a l a sk e d th e jur or s whe the r t he y wo uld 36 “be a ble to grant–not consider , but gr ant–probation under these spe cific f acts.” State’s B rief at 8. Al tho ugh it

might b e po ssibleto i nte rp re t de fe ns e c ouns e l’ s q ue sti on a s a sk ingif

jur or s c ou ld giveprobation rather than consider g iving pr obation, no juror see med to misunderstand that counsel wa s askingthem if they could follow the lawreg ardingthe minimum puni shment. The State urg es that, under

a prope r interpr etation of the que stion, the word “g ive” tra nsforms the e nti rese nte nc e int o a

n im pr op e r c omm itm e nt q

ue sti on . A c c or din gto t

he State ’s vie w, de fe ns e c o un s e l w a s a s k i n gth e p an e l m e mb e r s i f th e y c o u l d

m e r e l y consider

five year s of imprisonment while at the same time firmly resolvingto giveprobation. This rea ding is ove rly strained. First, a mor e appr opriate me aningto assign the question, and the one we be lieve that defe nse counse l conveyed to the jury , is whether the panel membe rs could conside r g iving probation in an a g gravated-sexual-assa ult-of-a -child ca se. This interpre tation simpl y ref lects the prosec utor’s pre vious voir dire explanation conce rningthe ava ilability and re quirements of probation. Seenote 27 su pra . Second, had the tone and tenor of counse l’s question conveyed the notion that the jurors must committo actually

grantingprobation, the e x perie nced trial prosec utor surely would have objected to that imprope r question. He did not do so, either at the time counse l posed the qu e sti on to t he pa ne l and a sk e d f or ind ivi du a l r e sp on se s, or

at th e tim e he ob

je c te d to de fe ns e c ouns e l’ s c ha lle ng e s f

or c a us e . Cl e arl y , h e did

no t th ink it w a s a n im pr op e r q ue sti on ; hesim

ply be lie ve d th at it

wa s n ot a

su ff ic ie nt q ue sti on to e sta bli shbia s a g a ins t th e min imum pu nis hme nt. Third, the State did not make this argument in the court of a ppeals, ther efor e that cour t had no opportunity

to addre ss it. Having f

ailed to ra ise this argument either at trial or on direc t appea l, the State comes too late now

. W e hol d t hatappel l antpr oper l ypr es er ved for r evi ew hi s deni ed cha l l enges for caus e. B . C ounsel ’ s Q ues t i on w as not an Im proper C om m i t m ent Q ues t i on I n i t s s econd gr ound for r evi ew , t he St at e ar gues t hat appel l ant ’ s ques t i on “w as

r epl et e w i t h fac t s t hatw oul d h ave bound j ur or s t o a ce r t ai n ans w eraft erl ear ni ng s ever al

‘ hypot het i cal ’ fac t s t hat w er e t aken s t r ai ght fr om t he fac t s of t he ac t ual cas e. ” A t t r i al , t he 36 pr os ecut or ar gued t hatcer t ai n “magi c” l anguage w as nece s s ar yt o s uppor t a cha l l enge f or

c a u se . In h is v iew , d e f

e n se c o u n se l w a s re q u ire d to a d d th e p h ra se , “ if th e f a c ts ju stif

yitCardena s Pag e 14

See note 9 supra. 37 The g ener ally

acc epted de finitions of “eve r” inc lude, “At a ny time”; “On a

ny 38 supposition, by

any chanc e, at a ll”; “In any

degree .” T HE C OMP AC T E DI TI ON OF THE O X FORD E NGL I S H D I CT I O N A RY , 907-08 (Oxford Univer sity Press 1971). T EX . P EN A L C ODE §§ 12.32(a) (minimum puni shment for a first-degreefelony

is five 39 ye ars ), 22 .0 21 (e ) ( a g gra

vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult is a fe lony of thefi rs t de gre e ); T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 42.12, § 4(a) (a llowing jury-asse ssed probation). For of fense s committed on or afte r Se pte mbe r 1 , 2 00 7, a

jur y may no t r e c omm e nd

pr ob atio n in

an a g gra vate d- se xua l- a ssa

ult c a se if the victim is young er tha

n fourtee n year s old. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 42.12, § 4(d) (5). a n d th e law a llo w s it” to c re a te th e p ro p e r f o u n d a tio n f

o r c h a llen g e s. N o su c h m a g ic 37 l anguage i s r equi r ed. Fi r s t , appel l ant ’ s couns el as ked t h e j ur or s i f t heycoul d “eve r fai r l ycons i der ” fi ve y ear s i n pr i s on or gi ve pr obat i on as an appr opr i at e puni s hm ent i n an aggr avat ed s exual

as s aul t of a chi l d cas e. T he pl ai n m eani ng of def ens e couns el ’ s ques t i on i s “coul d y ou ever

c o n sid e r– u n d e r a n yf

a c ts a t all– th e m in im u m p u n ish m e n t? ” T h e w o rd “ e v e r” w o u ld

cer t ai nl yencompas s “i f t he fa ct s j us t i fyi t , ” t hus t he fi r s t hal f of t he St at e’ s pr opos ed 38 l anguage i s i m pl i ci t i n t he ques t i on as ked. Second, t her e i s no doubt t hat t he “l aw al l ow [ed] ” fi ve y ear s i n pr i s on or on pr obat i on

as a puni s hm entfor aggr avat ed s exual a ssau l t att he t i m e t hi s cas e w as t r i ed i n 2005. 39 For ci ng defe ns e couns el t o t ack on “i f t he l aw al l ow s i t ” w oul d t ur n a cor r ect s t at ement of t he off ens e’ s m i ni m um puni s hm enti nt o s om et hi ng farm or e eni gm at i c, es peci al l y s i nce t he t r i al j udge, pr os ecut or , and def ens e couns el had al r eady t ol d t he j ur or s w hat t he mi ni m um puni s hm entw as . A ppel l ant ’ s couns el el i ci t ed a cl ear and conci s e r es pons e fr om eac h panelCardena s Pag e 15

The pe rtinent sections of the Penal Code rea d: “A per son commits an offense . . . if the 40 person . . . intentionally

or knowing ly . . . cause s the pene tration of the a nus or sexual org an of a child by any means; . . . [or] causes the sexual org an of a child to contact or

penetr ate the mouth, anus, or se x ual org an of a nother pe rson includingthe ac tor[.] ” T EX . P EN A L C ODE § 22.021(a) (1)( B) (i) & (iii). Couns e l’ s q

ue sti on tr a c ks tho se statut or

y pr ov isi on s: Iwa nt you to a ssume that you

have fo un d s omebo dy

guil ty of se xua l a ssa

ult , ag gravated sexual assault of a c hild. They intentionally

or knowing ly

cause d the penetr ation of the sexual org an of the complainingwitness, of the victim, by the means of the sexual orga

n or any other [sic] or with a finge r or with touching g e nit a l to g e nit a l. See Ba ra jas v . S tate , 93 S.W .3d 36, 38 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (“Par ties may not 41 ask whe ther ve nire membe rs ca n consider pr obation under the particula r fa cts of the c ase be yond the offe nse as c harg ed in the indictment.”)

. 121 S.W .3d 748 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). 42 m ember as t o w het herhe coul d cons i der t he mi ni m um puni s hm ent as t he l aw al l ow s . T he

se c o n d h a lf

o f th e S tate ’s p ro p o se d lan g u a g e w o u ld n o t aid in e x p lain in g th e law ; itw o u ld al m os t cer t ai nl ym y s t i fyt he j ur or s , as t heyhad al r eady been t ol d t hat t he l aw di d al l ow fi ve y e a rs in p riso n o r o n p ro b a tio n a s th e m in im u m p u n ish m e n t. T he St at e’ s fi nal ar gum enti s t hat t he s cena r i o pai nt ed bydefe ns e couns el cont ai ned to o m a n yh yp o th e tica l f a c ts. B u t d e f

e n se c o u n se l’s w o rd s in p re f a c in g h is q u e stio n c lo se ly tr ac k ed the s tat u torylang u ag e of the P en al C o d e. H is qu esti o n co n tai n ed n o ev iden ti ary 40 fa cts; all o f th e f

ac ts c o n tai n ed in h is qu esti o n w ere stat u toryelem en ts or stat u torym an n ers and m eans. T he S t at e ci t es S e lls v . S ta te , i n w hi ch w e hel d t hat t he ques t i on, “C an y ou

41 42 i m agi ne a s etof ci r cumst ance s , s etof fa ct s w her e y ou w oul d fi nd a per s on gui l t yof ca pi t al

m ur der , of ki l l i ng a y oung gi r l w h ere y ou w oul d [not i m pos e t he dea t h penal t y ?]” w as anCardena s Pag e 16

Id . at 757-58. 43 T EX . P EN A L C ODE § 19.03(a) (8) 44 951 S.W .2d 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 45 Id. at 789. 46 Id . at 79 0; se eals o T EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE § 4 81 .1 15 (b ) (po sse ssi on of le ss 47 than one gram of a

Penalty Group I substance is a

state-jail fe lony). im p ro p e r co m m itm e n t q u e stio n . T h a t q u e stio n “ so u g h t to c o m m it [th e v e n ire p e rso n ] to 43 a par t i c u l a r a n s wera f

t e r l e a r n i n g a p a r t i c u l a r f a c t , ” n a me l y , t h a t a y o u n g g i r l h a d been ki l l ed. T he capi t al m ur der s t at ut e i n T exas has no s t at ut or y el ement of a “y oung gi r l ” bei ng ki l l ed. T he def

endanti n S e lls had been char ged w i t h m ur der i n t he cour s e of c om m i t t i ng bur gl ar y , t hus t he age of t he vi ct i m w as i r r el evantfor pur pos es of St andef erc o m m i t m ent ques t i ons . B ut had t he def endantbeen c har ged w it h capi t al m ur der for t he i nt ent i onal k il li n g o f a ch il d u n d er six, h e c o u ld h a v e p rop erlyco m m it ted th e juro rs t o co n side r a 44

s ent ence ot hert han t he dea t h penal t yfor t he murde r of a c hi l d unders i x. L i kew i s e, i n A tkin s v . S ta te , w e hel d t hat the ques t i on, “I f t he evi dence , i n a 45 h yp o th e tica l ca se , sh o w e d th a t a p e rso n w a s a r r e ste d a n d th e yh a d a c ra c k p ip e in th e ir pocket , and t heyhad a r es i due amount i n i t , and i t coul d be m eas ur ed, and i t coul d be s een, i s there an y o n e w ho coul d not convi cta per s on, bas ed on t hat [?] ” w as an i m pr oper

comm i t m ent ques t i on. A pr oper comm i t m ent ques t i on w oul d have be en “Can y ou fol l ow 46 a l aw t hat s ay s a per s on can be found gui l t y of pos s es s i ng a r es i due amount ?” T he l at t er 47 lang u ag e re m ains the p rop er p h rasing u n d er to d ay ’s ho lding as it co n tai n s n o ev iden ti aryCardena s Pag e 17

fact s or non-st at utor ym ann ers and m eans. D efe ns e couns el ’ s comm i t m ent ques t i on cont ai ned no evi dent i ar y fac t s s uch as “C an y ou cons i der t he mi ni m um s ent ence i f t he chi l d w as a r el at i ve of t he def endant ’ s ?” O r “C an y ou cons i der t he mi ni m um s ent ence i f t he chi l d w as a four

- y ear - ol d?” O r “C an y ou cons i der the m inim u m s e n ten ce if t h e c h il d w as o f th e sa m e se x as th e d ef en d an t?” T h o se a re i m pr oper ques t i ons beca us e t hey go bey ond t he st at ut or y l anguage of t he cr i m i nal offe ns e. H ere , co u n sel d id n o t i n clud e a n yfa cts in h is hyp o thetical t h at w en t bey o n d the s tat u tory el ement s and s t at ut or ym annerand means of comm i t t i ng t hat offe ns e. C . C oncl usi on W e hol d t hat t he cour t of appe al s w as cor r ecti n concl udi ng t hat t he t r i al cour t abus ed i t s di s cr et i on bydeny i ng appel l ant ’ s chal l enges forcaus e t o j ur or s w ho unequi vocal l ys t at ed t hat t heycoul d not co ns i dert he mi ni m um puni s hm ent
. A comm i t m ent ques t i on m ayi ncl ude anyor al l of t he s t at ut or yel ement s and stat u t or ym anner s and means cont ai ned i n t he i ndi ct m ent , but t he i ncl us i on of evi dent iary fa ct s or non- s t at ut or ym anner s and means

r emai ns i m pr operunder t he St andef ertes t. W e affir m t he judgm ent of t he co urt of ap peals

. D el i ver ed: N ovember 10, 2010 P ub l i sh