Case Name: Elvin Lang SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1982-11-10
Citations: 641 S.W.2d 248
Docket Number: No. 117-82
Parties: Elvin Lang SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: TEAGUE, J., not participating.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 641
Pages: 248–249

Head Matter:
Elvin Lang SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 117-82.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Bane.
Nov. 10, 1982.
Ken J. McLean, Houston, on petition for discretionary review only, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty. and Ray Elvin Speece, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty. and Alfred Walker, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION ON STATE'S MOTION FOR REHEARING
ODOM, Judge.
Our prior opinion is withdrawn.
This cause is before the Court on appellant's petition for discretionary review. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. On original submission to this Court we reversed the conviction. We now reconsider that decision on the State's motion for rehearing.
The issue before the Court concerns a ruling by the trial court on the State's challenge for cause:
"PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I have a son that's in Huntsville on Death Row that had a trial by a jury, and I don't feel like I could give a fair verdict to anybody. I don't think I could be a fair juror for anybody here because of that. Because it's too—
"THE COURT: Are you telling me then that because of the torment that you went through, that you simply could not be a fair juror under any circumstances?
"PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir.
"MR. NETTLES [Prosecutor]: State moves to challenge for cause.
"THE COURT: It's granted.
"MR. GUYON [Defense Counsel]: Defendant would object.
"THE COURT: All right."
On original submission we held this ruling was error, because, "The statement by the prospective juror that she did not think that she could be a fair juror for anybody, standing alone, does not constitute a basis for challenge for cause under Article 35.16, V.A.C.C.P."
On rehearing the State contends the prospective juror was subject to challenge for cause under Art. 35.16(a)(8), V.A.C.C.P., which provides a ground for challenge if "he has a bias or prejudice in favor of or against the defendant." It appears from cases decided under this provision that no particular bias or particular prejudice in favor of or against the defendant need be shown in order to sustain a challenge for cause, and that the trial judge is accorded considerable discretion in the matter. See, e.g., McCary v. State, 477 S.W.2d 624, 628; Noah v. State, 495 S.W.2d 260, 264. On rehearing we conclude the prospective jur- or's statement that he could not be a fair juror under any circumstances was sufficient to support the State's challenge for cause, and the trial court's ruling did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
The State's motion for rehearing is granted and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
TEAGUE, J., not participating.
. In light of the previous answer, we interpret this "No, sir" to mean the prospective juror was answering that she could not be a fair juror under any circumstances.