Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 23, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00842-CR

NO. 14-14-00843-CR

JOHN ALLEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1408377 & 1408378

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant appeals his convictions for aggravated robbery and evading arrest. 

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 29.03 & 38.04 (West 2011). In three issues he argues 

the trial court erred in denying his challenges for cause to three prospective jurors.

We affirm. 
2

I. BACKGROUND

Appellant and a co-defendant stole the complainant’s car at gun-point while 

the complainant was looking for his daughter’s homework in his car. The 

complainant reported the theft, and responding police officers discovered the car 

approximately 20 minutes later. After the officers activated their emergency 

equipment, appellant and his co-defendant fled in the car. Officers eventually 

apprehended appellant and the co-defendant in the stolen car. Appellant was 

advised of his rights, and gave a statement in which he admitted that he 

participated in the robbery and fled when he saw the police, but was not aware that 

his co-defendant had a shotgun. 

II. CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS

In three issues appellant argues the trial court erroneously denied his 

challenges for cause to Jurors 6, 29, and 30. Following the seating of the jury,

appellant requested three additional strikes, and stated that he would use them on 

Jurors 14, 19, and 20. The trial court overruled appellant’s request for additional 

strikes. 

A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

In reviewing the trial court’s ruling on a challenge for cause, we review the 

entire record to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to support the trial 

court’s ruling. Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798, 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). 

Because “the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate a veniremember’s 

demeanor and responses,” we will reverse a trial court’s ruling only if the court

clearly abused its discretion. Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274, 295–96 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2009); Ferree v. State, 416 S.W.3d 2, 7 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] 2013, pet. ref’d). The trial court’s ruling warrants particular deference when 
3

a veniremember’s responses are ambiguous, vacillating, unclear, or contradictory.

Gardner, 306 S.W.3d at 296; Ferree, 416 S.W.3d at 7.

The defense may challenge a prospective juror for cause if he has a bias or 

prejudice in favor of or against the defendant, or against any of the law applicable 

to the cause upon which the defense is entitled to rely. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. 

art. 35.16(a)(9), (c)(2) (West 2006); see also Gardner, 306 S.W.3d at 295. The trial 

court must excuse the juror if “the bias or prejudice would substantially impair the 

prospective juror’s ability to carry out his oath and instructions in accordance with 

the law.” Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748, 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

B. Challenge to Juror No. 6

In his first issue, appellant argues the trial court’s erroneous denial of his 

challenge for cause to Juror No. 6 substantially affected his rights. At the 

conclusion of his voir dire examination, defense counsel asked if there were any 

questions he should have asked. Juror No. 6 initiated the following conversation:

Juror No. 6: I might not be table [sic] to comprehend all the terms 

because I’m not familiar. English is actually not my first—

[Defense counsel]: Me either. Over in Buckingham Palace they 

wouldn’t — no serious you have difficulty comprehending English.

[Juror No. 6]: You know like technical terms and legal terms and 

maybe sometimes yeah. English grammar things like that.

[Defense counsel]: Have you understood everything that everybody 

has said so far in this room?

[Juror No. 6]: I think I pretty much got the picture.

[Defense counsel]: That’s not exactly — I speak some Spanish and 

when I’m in a situation I can pretty much get the picture but I’m not 

when it comes down so my question is this have you absolutely 

understood all the language here in the courtroom today?

[Juror No. 6]: Not everything. 
4

Appellant challenged Juror No. 6 for cause due to the language barrier. The 

trial court asked Juror No. 6 if her language barrier had caused her any problems in 

understanding the discussion of the legal concepts. Juror No. 6 replied, “I don’t 

think so. I think I understood what ya’ll discussed.”

Appellant argues that his challenge to Juror No. 6 should have been granted 

because English was not her first language. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 

provides that a prospective juror may be challenged for cause as incapable or unfit 

to serve on a jury if the juror cannot read or write. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 

35.16(a)(11) (West 2006); see also Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 62.102(5) (West 

2013). Courts have interpreted the literacy requirement to mean that a person must

be able to read and write the English language. Pineda v. State, 2 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d). A prospective juror is challengeable 

for cause if the juror cannot understand English. Montoya v. State, 810 S.W.2d 

160, 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989).

Earlier in the voir dire examination, the prosecutor asked for suggestions of 

how a person’s intent could be determined. Juror No. 6 replied, “Look at evidence 

‘cause I can’t read their heart.” When asked by the court whether her language 

barrier would cause problems in understanding the proceedings, Juror No. 6 

replied, “I don’t think so. I think I understood what ya’ll discussed.” In reviewing 

this question, we are mindful that the trial court had the opportunity to observe 

Juror No. 6’s personal demeanor, her ability to understand and respond to the court 

and the attorneys, and her general ability to communicate in English. Juror No. 6 

exhibited a greater command of the English language than veniremembers in 

similar cases in which a challenge for cause has been upheld. Cf. Montoya, 810 

S.W.2d at 170 (holding that juror who needed an interpreter was properly excused 

for cause); Pineda, 2 S.W.3d at 8–9 (holding that prospective juror who spoke 
5

Spanish at home, work, and in his daily conversations and advised the court that he 

was concerned that “he could miss some things” was properly excused for cause).

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Juror No. 6 

understood the English language sufficiently to potentially sit on the jury. See 

Hodge v. State, 896 S.W.2d 340, 343 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1995, pet. ref’d) 

(holding that although prospective juror expressed difficulty in communicating 

with large words or for an extended period of time in English, this did not 

disqualify him as a matter of law). We overrule appellant’s first issue.

C. Challenge to Juror No. 29

In his second issue appellant argues the trial court’s erroneous denial of his 

challenge for cause to Juror No. 29 substantially affected his rights. With regard to 

credibility of witnesses and whether prospective jurors would prejudge the 

credibility of a police officer, the following occurred during the State’s voir dire 

examination:

[The prosecutor]: Is there anyone here who is automatically going to

hold a police officer as being less credible just because they’re a 

police officer? I don’t like the police. I don’t believe any police 

officer. Is there anyone who’s going to say I like the police so before I 

hear this officer testify I’m automatically going to believe him. Can 

you wait until you hear each witness testify and then determine based 

on their testimony whether or not you find them credible?

* * * * *

[Juror No. 29]: I have a question.

[The prosecutor]: Yes.

[Juror No. 29]: Even if you wait and you hear it all and maybe they 

both sound like they’re a little credible, credible whatever and you 

can’t make your decision they’re going to lean towards that policeman 

even though you already presented everything that you needed to 

present as well as the other side. But you’re going to lean toward that 

police officer just because he’s in that uniform.
6

[The prosecutor]: What I’m saying is you can’t lean towards the

police officer just because he’s a police officer but once you’ve heard 

the evidence, if you believe that officer is telling you the truth that’s 

your right to believe that they’re being truthful. You believe a witness 

is being dishonest once you hear them testify you’re here to judge the

facts. But what you can’t do and what I’m asking that you don’t do is 

make a decision before they actually take the stand and testify.

[Juror No. 29]: I’m sorry.

[The prosecutor]: Yes.

[Juror No. 29]: What I’m getting at is that after you listen to all the 

evidence, ‘cause you’re saying a witness is received [sic] the police 

officer evidence your witnesses are evidence and you’re having a 

really hard time on who’s being honest and who’s not because 

somebody is lying because you’re going to have two different 

versions of what really happened. And you’re having a hard time 

weighing who is actually really telling the truth and who is giving you 

all the information you need to make that informed decision. You’re 

going to lean towards that officer.

Appellant’s challenge for cause to Juror No. 29 was denied. Appellant

contends Juror No. 29 should have been excused for cause because she would tend 

to lean toward a police officer’s testimony and give him more credibility than other 

witnesses.

A prospective juror is challengeable for cause under Article 35.16(a)(9) if 

she cannot impartially judge the credibility of witnesses. Jones v. State, 982 

S.W.2d 386, 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). However, this means only that jurors 

must be open-minded and persuadable, with no extreme or absolute positions 

regarding the credibility of any witness. Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547, 560 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1999). Prospective jurors are not challengeable for cause simply 

because they would give certain classes of witnesses a slight edge in terms of 

credibility. Jones, 982 S.W.2d at 389. A prospective juror who is “simply more or 

less skeptical of a certain category of witness” is not subject to a challenge for 
7

cause. Feldman v. State, 71 S.W.3d 738, 747 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

The proponent of a challenge for cause has the burden of establishing his 

challenge is proper. Gardner, 306 S.W.3d at 295. The proponent does not meet his 

burden until he has shown that the prospective juror understood the requirement of 

the law and could not overcome his or her prejudice well enough to follow it. Id.

Although Juror No. 29 expressed a tendency to be less skeptical of law 

enforcement witnesses, she explained that she would listen to all the evidence, and 

would not automatically believe a police officer prior to hearing the evidence. The 

record of the voir dire supports the ruling of the trial judge, who was in the best 

position to evaluate Juror No. 29’s responses. We overrule appellant’s second 

issue.

D. Challenge to Juror No. 30

In his third issue, appellant argues the trial court’s erroneous denial of his 

challenge for cause to Juror No. 30 substantially affected his rights. During defense 

counsel’s voir dire, the following took place:

[Defense counsel]: Well would you put police officers to a different 

level of proof when you’re considering the credibility of their 

testimony than an ordinary citizen? Right. A police officer some 

people would say well, you know I don’t trust policemen so I don’t 

care if — you know I don’t know anything about this policeman if 

he’s wearing blue I mistrust his testimony. I just try not to believe his

testimony. If he’s wearing blue he’s probably going to tell the truth so 

I give him an extra credibility boost just because he’s a police officer 

before I hear anything about him, about what he does, what he knows, 

what he saw, what he heard I’m going to give him an extra credibility 

boost.

Anybody believe either of those scenarios, don’t like cops or trust 

them?

Yes, sir No. 13.
8

[Juror No. 13]: I like them, believe them and trust.

[Defense counsel]: Yes, ma’am. So if a policeman testifies, he says I 

swear to tell the truth and I’m a policeman, you don’t know anything 

about him, do you know anything about what he saw, what he had to 

say yet I’m a policeman. I swear to tell the truth and he sits down. At

that point would you give him a credibility boost over any other kind 

of witness?

[Juror No. 13]: Yes. And I think our society has a problem trusting 

them. The criminal trial where race was a factor and nobody, nobody 

on the jury trusted the police so I grew up that way. I try to be 

respectful of the policemen but I’m sure it’s good police and bad 

police but we think and I think that if we can’t trust our police we got 

big problems.

[Defense counsel]: Anybody agree with [Juror No. 13]? I think police 

are more worthy of trust before I hear anything else about them than 

the average person and I’m going to give a credibility boost based on 

that.

* * * * *

[Defense counsel]: Okay. And No. 30 [ ], you believe that too? Okay. 

You tend to give the police an extra credibility boost just because he’s 

a policeman?

[Juror No. 30]: Yeah. When you say he — as he described it.

In considering the challenge to Juror No. 30, the trial court asked the 

following questions:

THE COURT: Follow-up question for No. 30. In terms of police 

officer testimony can you wait and hear what a police officer testifies 

to before you judge his credibility or have you already made up your 

mind?

[Juror No. 30]: I’ll wait for him.

Juror No. 30, like Juror No. 29, stated that he would wait to hear a police 

officer’s testimony before judging his credibility. Initially, Juror No. 30 agreed 

with another juror that he would “give a credibility boost” to a police officer. 

However, when questioned by the trial court, Juror No. 30 agreed to wait to hear 
9

the testimony before judging a police officer’s credibility. Appellant has not shown 

that Juror No. 30 could not overcome his bias well enough to follow the law. See 

Gardner, 306 S.W.3d at 295. Because the trial court acted within its discretion in 

denying appellant’s challenge for cause to Juror No. 30, we overrule appellant’s 

third issue.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Sharon McCally

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, McCally, and Donovan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).