## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 2 0 0 - CV
IN T H E M A T T E R O FJ .G .C .G .

----- ----- -- FR O M CO UN TY CO URT AT LAW NO . 1 OF DENTO N CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### OPI NI ON

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on I n t h i sa g g r a va t e d s e x u a l a s s a u l t /d e l i n q u e n tc o n d u c tc a s e , J . G. C. G. ( her ei naft er“ Buddy” ) as se rt s i n one i ss ue t hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by d eny i ng hi s r equ es tf ora m i st r i alaft erl ea r ni ng t hata s ea t ed j ur orw ast ak i ng a c o n tro l l e d s u b s ta n c e . W e a ffir m . I I . Bac kground A ft ert he si x- per so n j ury w as sw or n and se at ed, t he f ol l ow i ng e xch ang e t o o kp la c e b e t w e e n t h e c o u rt , a ju r o r , a n d c o u n s e l:2

TH E CO U RT: . . . D o a ny o fyou ha ve anym edi ca l ne eds ; you ha ve t o eatata c ert ai n t i m e ort ake m edi cat i ons oranyt hi ng of t hat s o rt? A l l ri g h t, Y e s , sir? J U R O R : I d o ta k e p a i n m e d i c a ti o n , a n d th a t’se v e ryfo u r h o u rs , so -- T H E C O U R T : E v e ry f o u r h o u rs. D o y o u h a v e tha t m e d i c a ti o n w i th you? J U R O R : I n th e c a r. TH E CO U RT: A tw hatt i m e i s yourne xts che dul ed m edi ca t i on? JU R O R : 4: 00 o’ cl ock. TH E C O U R T: 4 : 00 o ’ cl ock. S o w e’ l l need-

- okay, everybod y, t hose o f yo u w h o are -- p rob a b l yb e the

-- L e t’ s try to ke e p an ey e o n i t. JU R O R : I t’ s n o t- - i t ’ s nota r eal

- - i t ’ s notl i ke I have t o geti tt hat i ns t ant . I ’ m j us tl ett i ng y ou k now . TH E C O U R T: Bu tr oug hl y 4: 00 o’ cl ock? J U R O R : R i g h t. TH E C O U R T: O kay. N o, w e need t o know t hat . A nd t hen t o m o r r o w , ify o u w o u ld , p le a s e , w r it e d o w n w h a ty o u rs c h e d u le is fo r t o m o rr o w so the b a i l i ff c a n ke e p m e i n fo rm e d ab o u t t h a t. JUR O R: O ka y. TH E CO U RT: W e d on’ tw antyou t o go i nt o s om e s ortofpa i nf ul si t uat i on.

. . . . TH E CO U RT: I ’ m goi ng t o a skt he j ury t o s t ep out si de. I ’ m goi ng t o a skt hi s onej ur orw i t h m edi ca t i on t o r em ai n i n t he cou rt r oom f or j us ta m i nut e o rt w o.3

T H E C O U R T : O k a y . N o w t h a te v e ry b o d ye ls e iso u t , w ill t h is m edi ca t i on i nt erf er e i n a ny w ay w i t h yo urab i l i t y t o l i st en? JUR O R: N o. T H E C O U R T : A n d

-- JUROR: No . I

- - I ’ v e b e e n t a k i n g i t f o r a c o u p l e y e a r s , an d t he doc t orha s gi ven i tt o m e f or - - I ha d ba d f oots ur gery. TH E CO U RT: U h- huh. J U R O R : A n d I d o n ’tev e n -- I ca n ’tev e n tel l I’m t a k i n g i t, q u i te h o n e stl y , b u t I ca n tel l w h e n I d o n ’ttak e i t be c a u se I h u rt . T H E C O U R T : W o u l d y o u m i n d tel l i n g u s th e n a m e o f t h a t? JU R O R : H ydr ocod one and Lyr i ca. TH E CO U RT: O ka y. JU R O R : A nd C ym bal t a. T H E C O U R T : A n d i t d o e s n ’t i n te rfe re w i th y o u r d ri v i n g -- JUR O R: N o. T H E C O U R T : --y o u r-- J U R O R : I n fac t, I

-- I d ri v e fo r a l i v i n g , so i f i t i n terfere d w i th tha t, t hen i tw oul d be an i ssue. TH E C O U R T: O kay. Ret ur n t he j ur y, pl ease. [D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ]: J u d g e , I h a d a m o ti o n I-

- TH E CO U RT: O ka y. W ai t . I ’ m s or ry. [D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ]: I ’d l i k e to m a k e a m o ti o n o u ts i d e th e --4

TH E C O U R T : O kay. Then I ’ m goi ng t o ask you, w oul d you st ep outs i de, pl ease. TH E CO U RT: O ka y. Ther e’ s no j ury m em beri n t he cou rt r oom . [ D EFENSE C O U N SEL] : Jud ge, att hi s t i m e, duet o t he m ent i on of t h e s e n a r c o t ic d r u g st h a tw e r e n o tm e n t io n e d o n v o ird i r e b yt h is pe r so n tha t ’ s be en sel ec t ed f or t he j ury, I ’ m go i ng t o m o v e f o r a m i st r i alb ec aus e, ba se d on t he m edi ca t i on, t he coc kt ai l

- t ypeof m edi ca t i onst hathe ’ s on- - he’ s on t hr eedi f f er entm edi cat i ons f or pai n, and I know m ysel ft hatH ydr ocod one i s a nar cot i c dr ug t hat c a n s e v e r e ly im p a ir ju d g m e n t , a n d t h a t b e c a u s e o f t h a t , a t t h ist im e w e ’r e g o in g t o re s p e c t f u llyre q u e s ta m is t r ia l. TH E CO U RT: D oest he St at e h ave a ny p osi t i on on t hi s? Hear i ng n o n e , I ’m d e n y i n g th e m o ti o n . A l so , t he nex tda y t he f ol l ow i ng e xch ang ed occ ur r ed: [D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ]: A r e w e k e e p in g u p w it h o u rju r o r ’s p a in m edi ca t i on? THE COU RT: Ye s . W e l l , y e s . I g otan e- m ai l a bo utt ha t . 12: 00 noon i s w hen hene edst o t ak e h i s nex tm edi ca t i on. [ D EFEN S E C O U N S EL] : Th ank you , Judg e. (R e c e s sta k e n ) T H E C O U R T : T h e b a ilif fh a d in f o r m e d m e t h a ty o u rm e d ic a t io n is due at4: 00 o’ cl ock. C an you t ake t hati n abou tf i ve m i nutes ? JUR O R: Yeah. TH E CO U RT: O ka y. W e’ r e g oi ng t o l ett he j ury e xi tf orab outf i ve m in u t e s . G o a h e a d a n d t a k e c a r e o fy o u rm e d ic a t io n . T h e n w e ’ll hav e y ou c om e b ac k i n.5 I I I . Di sc us si on A . Standar d ofRev i ew W e r evi ew a tr i alco urt ’ s r ul i ng on a m ot i on f orm i st r i alf oran ab us e o f d i s c re ti o n . S e eWeb bv. S tate , 2 3 2 S .W .3 d 1 0 9 , 1 1 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). W e v i ew t he evi den ce i n t he l i ghtm os tf avo r abl e t o t he t r i alco urt ’ s r ul i ng a nd
u p h o l d t h e ru l i n g if it w a sw i th i n th e zo n e o f re a s o n a b l e d i s a g re e m e n t. Id . A t r i alco urtab us esi t s di sc r et i on i n de ny i ng a m ot i on f orm i st r i alonl y w hen no re a s o n a b l e v i e w o f th e re c o rd c o u l d s u p p o rt t h e ru l i n g . Id . The de t er m i nat i on ofw het hera j ur ori s di sa bl ed i s al so w i t hi n t he di sc r et i on oft he t r i alco urt , an d
a b s e n t a n a b u s e o f th a t d i s c re ti o n , w e w i l l n o t fi n d re v e rs i b l e e rro r. S ee Brooks
v. S tate , 9 9 0 S .W .2 d 2 7 8 , 2 8 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p .), cert. deni ed, 528 U. S. 956 (1 9 9 9 ). B. D i sa bl ed Juror Buddy f r am eshi s com pl ai nti n t er m s ofart i cl e 35 . 16 oft he Texa s C ode ofCr i m i nalPr oce dur e, ent i t l ed “Rea so nsf orChal l eng e f orCause . ” Spec i f i ca l l y, B u d d ya s s e rtsth e a p p l i c a b i l i tyo f a rti c l e 3 5 .1 6 (a )(5 ), w h i c h re a d si n p a rt, A c h a l l e n g e fo r c a u s e i sa n o bj e c ti o n m a d e t o a p a rti c u l a r j u ro r, a l l e g i n g so m e fac t w h i c h ren d e rs the j u rorin c a p a b l e o r un fi t t o serve on t he j ur y . . . f orany one of t he f ol l ow i ng r easons: 5. Th att he j ur orha s su ch . . . bodi l y orm ent alde f ec tor d i s e a s e a sto re n d e r th e j u ro r u n fi t fo r j u rys e rv i c e . . . .1 ... I n Cordova , th e S a n A n to n i o C o u rt o f A p p e a l sh e l d th a t th e tri a l c o u rt

d i d n o t ab u se i ts d i sc reti o n b yg ran ti n g the S ta te ’s ch a l l e n g e for c a u se o f a ven i r epe r so n w ho t es t i f i ed d ur i ng v oi rdi r e t hats he had a hea r i ng de f i ci enc y, t hatsi t t i ng f orext ende d p e ri ods oft i m e caused herpai n because ofback su r gery, an d t hathe rm edi ca t i on m adehe rdr ow sy , al l ofw hi ch w oul d pr eve nt he rf r om d e vo t i ng h e rf ul l a t t e nt i on t o t het r i a l . 200 4 W L2997 734, a t*1. 6 Tex. Code Cr i m . Pr oc. A nn. art . 35. 16( a) ( 5) ( V er non 200 6) . H e al so r ef er s us t o Co rdo vav. S tate , N o. 04- 03- 006 39- C R, 2004 W L 299773 4, at*1 ( Tex. A pp. — San An t oni o Dec. 29, 2004 , no p et . ) ( m em . op. , notde si gna t ed f or p u b l i c a ti o n ), 1 a l th o u g h h e a c k n o w l e d g e s th a t th i s c a s e i s “ c l e a rl y n o t o n p o i n t.” W e n ot e t hat , w hi l e t he w or d “j ur or ” i s us ed t hr ougho utch apt er35 oft he
c o d e o fc r i m i n a l p r o c e d u r e , e n t it le d “ F o r m a t io n o ft h e J u ry ,” itisa p p a r e n tin
con t extt hatt he w or d i n a rt i cl e 35. 16 r ef er s t o prospective j u rors a n d n o t t o s e a te d j u ro rs . S ee S tate v. Morales , 253 S. W . 3d 686, 693 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 8 ) (“[N ]oth i n g i n [ a ]rti c l e 3 5 .1 6 ex p res s lyr e q u i res a tri a l co u rtto g ran t a chal l enge f orcause agai nsta prospec tivej u ro r . . . .“) (e m p h a s i sa d d e d ); see al soWebb , 232 S . W . 3d at112 ( st at i ng t hatart i cl e 35. 16( a) ( 7) i s a g r ound f or a chal l enge f orcause ofa panel i st); Gran a do s v. S tate , 8 5 S . W . 3d 217, 230 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) (d is c u s s i n g c h a l l e n g e sto p ro s p e c ti v e j u ro rs ), c ert. denied, 5 3 8 U .S . 9 2 7 (2 0 0 3 ); Feld m a nv. S tate , 71 S. W . 3d 738, 744 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) (sa m e ); K i ngv. S tate , 29 S. W . 3d 556 , 568 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 0 ) (sa m e ). T h e re fo re , B u d d y ’sa rg u m e n t u n d e r a rti c l e 3 5 .1 6 (a )(5 ) a p p e a rs2 ... W e n ot e t ha t t he “ a bs ol ut e d i s qu a l i f i c a t i on ” p r ov i s i on i n a rt i c l e 35. 19

d o e sn o t a p p l yto a rti c l e 3 5 .1 6 (a )(5 ). S eeT e x . C o d e . C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt . 3 5 .1 9 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 6 ). 7 t o bei nap pos i t e b ec aus e t he j ur ori n que st i on had al r ea dy bee n s ea t ed by t he t i m e t he t r i alco urtw asap pr i se d ofhi s m edi ca l co ndi t i on. 2 H ow ever , an accused i n a cr i m i nal p r osecut i on has the r i ght t o a f ai rt r i al b ya n i m p a rti a l j u ry . S eeTex. Const . art . I, § 1 0. W hen a j ur orw i t hhol ds
m at er i ali nf or m at i on i n t he voi r di r e pr oce ss w i t hout f aul t or l ac k ofdi l i gen ceby t he com pl ai ni ng part y, t h e part i es ar e deni ed an opp ort uni t y t o exer ci se c h a l l e n g e s , w h i c h h a m p e rsth e s e l e c ti o n o f a n i m p a rti a l j u ry . F ran kl i nv. S tate , 1 2 S .W .3 d 4 7 3 , 4 7 7

– 7 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); A rm stro ngv. S tate , 897 S .W .2 d 3 6 1 , 3 6 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ); Sa l aza r v. S tate , 562 S. W . 2d 480, 48 2 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 19 78 ) . Ther ef or e, w hen a j ur orw i t hho l ds m at er i al i n fo rm a ti o n d u ri n g v o i r d i re , a m i s tri a l m a yb e a p p ro p ri a te . See F rankl i n v. S tate , 1 3 8 S .W .3 d 3 5 1 , 3 5 3

– 5 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). T o o b t a in a r e v e r s a l o n a n a lle g a t io n t h a ta ju r o rw it h h e ld in f o r m a t io n in voi rdi r e, an ap pel l antm us ts how t hatm at er i ali nf orm ati on w as“ w i t hhe l d” des pi t e d ue di l i gen ceex erci se d byt he com pl ai ni ng pa rt y, w ho a ct ed i n goo d fa i th o n th e a n s w e rsg i v e n b ya j u ro r i n v o i r d i re . S e eF ra n klin , 12 S. W . 3d at 4 7 8 ; D eLa Ro sa v. S tate , 6 5 8 S .W .2 d 1 6 2 , 1 6 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p .), c ert.8

denied, 4 6 4U .S . 8 6 5 (1 9 8 3 ); se ea l so Brownv. S tate , 183 S. W . 3d 728, 737 (T e x . A p p .— H o u sto n [ 1 st D i st.] 2 0 0 5 , p e t. re f’ d ). I n fo rm a ti o n i s c o n side red to b e “ w i th h e l d ” w h e n th e d e fe n s e c o u n s e l a s k e d q u e s ti o n s i n v o i r d i re th a t w e re ca l cul at ed t o unc ove rm at er i ali nf or m at i on , a nd the j ur ordi d notr eve alt he i n fo rm a ti o n . Jo n esv. S tate , 5 9 6 S .W .2 d 1 3 4 , 1 3 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 0 ),
o verrule d

o no th er gro un ds b ySn e e d v. S tate , 670 S. W . 2d 262 , 2 6 6 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 1984 ) . An appe l l ant ’ s t r i alco uns elm us tbedi l i gen ti n e l i ci t i ng pert i nent i nf or m at i on f r om veni r e m em ber s dur i ng vo i rdi r e i n an ef f ortt o r eveal p rej u d i c e o r p o te n ti a l b i a s . G o nza les v. S tate , 3 S . W . 3 d 9 1 5 , 9 1 7 ( T e x . C r i m. A pp. 19 99 ) . U n l e ss th e d ef ense counsel asks such quest i ons, t he m at er i al i nf or m at i on t hat a j ur orf ai l s t o di scl ose i s not“w i t hhel d. ” Id. ; A r m strong , 897 S . W . 2d at36 4. Furt her m or e, w hen t he i nf or m a ti o n w i t hhel d i s notm at er i al
a n d th e re c o rd d o e sn o t s h o w th a t th e d e fe n d a n t w a sd e n i e d a n i m p a rti a l j u ry o r a fa i r tri a l , d e n y i n g a m o ti o n fo r m is tri a l i sn o t e rro r. D e cker v. S tate , 717 S .W .2 d 9 0 3 , 9 0 7

– 0 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ). C . A n a ly s is A r evi ew ofthe vo i rd i r e i n t hi s case does not r eveal any quest i ons posed t o t he j ur y panel t hatw oul d have cal l ed upo n t he veni r e t o r eveal t he m edi cal
s i tu a ti o n th a t i st h e b a s iso f th i sa p p e a l . S e eF ra n klin , 12 S . W . 3d a t478. H enc e, t he j ur ordi d not“ w i t hhol d”m at er i ali nf or m at i on.3 ... U nderart i cl e 36 . 29 , a juro ri s di sabl ed i fhe has a “physi cal i l l ness,

m e n t a l c o n d it io n , o re m o t io n a l s t a t e ” t h a th i n d e r s h isa b ilit yt o p e r f o r m h is d u ti e sa sa j u ro r. Hi l l v. S tate , 9 0 S .W .3 d 3 0 8 , 3 1 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ). Thi s t ypeofdi sa bi l i t y i ncl ude s “a ny c ondi t i on t hati nhi bi t s a j ur orf r om f ul l y a nd f ai r l y per f or m i ng t he f uncti ons ofa j ur or . ” Ro u ti er v. S tate , 112 S. W . 3d 554, 5 8 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ), cert. denied, 5 4 1 U .S . 1 0 4 0 (2 0 0 4 ). A l t hough t he C odeofC r i m i nalPr oce dur e doesnotad dr es s how a cou rts houl d pr oce ed w hen t her e a r e f ew er th an si x r em ai ni ng j ur or s i n a m i sd em ea norca seduet o t he di sa bi l i t y ofoneoft he j ur or s, co urt s hav e t r ea t ed t hi s si t uat i on i n m i sd em ea norj ur i est he s a m e a sf o rf e lo n yju r ie s . . . . T h u s , w h e n t h e ju ryc o m p o s e d o fs ix peo pl e i s r edu ce d t o f i ve j ur or s duet o a j ur orbe com i ng di sabl ed, t h e t r ia l c o u rtc o u ld e it h e rd e c la r e a m is t r ia l, o ra lt e r n a t iv e ly , it c o u l d p roc e e d to a v e rdict w i th th e re m a i n i n g fi v e j u rors i f t h e S tate and defendantagr ee. Ga rzav. S tate , 2 7 6 S .W .3 d 6 4 6 , 6 5 1

– 5 2 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 20 08 , pet . f i l ed) ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons om i t t ed). W h i l e art i cl e 36 . 29 di scusses w hatoc cur s w hen a m em be ro fa t w el ve- per so n j ury be com esdi sa bl ed, an d B u d d yw a st ri e d b e fo re a s i x -p e rs o n ju ry , w e f i n d i t s u fficie n tl ya n a l o g o u s . S ee i d.;se ealso D ea nv. S tate , No. 01- 01- 00443

- CR, 2002 W L 31122 124, a t*3 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1st D i st . ] Sept . 26, 200 2, pet . r ef ’ d) ( notde si gna t ed f or publ i ca t i on) ( hol di ng t hatt he t r i al cou rt di d not abu se i t s di sc r et i on byf i ndi ng t hata j ur orw as notdi sabl ed w hen, dur i ng t r i al , t he j ur orbecam e i nvol ved i n an al t er ca t i on t hatr equ i r ed m edi ca l att ent i on a nd i nf or m ed t he t r i alco urtt hathe 9 F u rth e rm o re , a l th o u g h B u d d yfa i l e d to ra i s e a n a rg u m e n t u n d e r a rt ic le 36. 29 oft he codeofcr i m i nalpr oce dur e, r ega r di ng s ea t ed j ur or s w ho be com e di sabl ed, w e not e t hateven und er t hi s pr ovi si on, t he t r i al courtdi d not abuse it s d is c r e t io n b e c a u s e t h e ju r o r in d ic a t e d t o t h e t r ia l c o u rt t h a t h i s p a in
m e d ic a t io n d id n o tin t e r f e r e w it h h isa b ilit ie st o lis t e n o rt o d r iv e (h is p ro fe s s i o n ). S eeT e x . C o d e C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 3 6 .2 9 (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 3w oul d notbeab l e t o f ocu s an d pa y a t t ent i on t hatda y, butt hathew oul d be

abl e t o pa y a t t ent i on a nd f ai r l y a nd i m part i al l y pe r f or m hi s f unc t i onsas a j ur or th e fo l l o w i n g d a y ; th e tri a l c o u rt p o s tp o n e d th e tri a l u n ti l th e fo l l o w i n g d a y ), cert. denied, 5 4 0 U .S . 1 0 1 9 (2 0 0 3 ). 10 Bu ddy’ s counsel di d not ask t he j ur orany quest i o n s, a nd hen ce not hi ng w as d e v e lo p e d t o o t h e r w is e in d ic a t e t h a tt h e ju r o rw a su n a b le t o f u llya n d f a ir ly per f or m hi s dut i es as a j ur or . W e over r ul e Bu ddy’ s sol e i ssue. I V . Concl us i on H a v i n g o v e rr u l e d B u d d y ’s so l e i ss u e , w e a ffi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

B OBM CC OY J U S T I C E PA N EL: G A RD N ER, W A LKER, an d M C C O Y, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Apr i l 16, 2009