Court Opinion

ID: 9774473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:21:48.852084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:08.858831
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
W.C. DAVIS, Judge.
On original submission appellant’s conviction for capital murder was reversed and the cause was remanded. We concluded that a prospective juror had been excluded in violation of the holdings in Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980), and Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968).
We have granted the State’s motion for leave to file motion for rehearing in order to consider its allegations that our original holding was incorrect because (1) Mrs. Hlo-zek was properly excused under Wither-spoon, supra, or (2) if excusing Hlozek was error, it was harmless in that the State had peremptory challenges remaining at the conclusion of the voir dire examination.
Upon reconsideration, we continue to adhere to our original holding, that:
“the venirewoman [Hlozek] would follow the law, that she would base her verdict on the evidence, that she could answer Yes to the special issues, but that her answers might be affected by her knowledge of the possible penalty. The application of Section 12.31(b) to excuse her was a violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.”
The State’s only meritorious issue raised in this regard is whether appellant failed to properly preserve his error as to the exclusion of this venirewoman. The State now maintains that while appellant’s trial counsel made “an exception” to the court’s ruling, this constituted nothing more than a general objection and he therefore waived any possible error. We do not agree. It must be kept in mind that the voir dire examination in question took place in June of 1977, three full years prior to the June 1980 decision in Adams, supra. Therefore, at the time Hlozek was excused, Sec. 12.31(b) was considered constitutional even to the extent that it allowed exclusion of prospective jurors on a broader ground than Witherspoon, supra, and consequently there was no reason for appellant’s counsel to strenuously attempt to preserve his error. We find that appellant did not waive his error. The improper exclusion of even one *442juror requires that the death sentence not be imposed. Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 97 S.Ct. 399, 50 L.Ed.2d 399 (1976). The State’s contention is overruled.1
The State next maintains that the error in excluding Hlozek was harmless in that the State had peremptory challenges remaining after the voir dire examination. This argument has been previously argued before this Court and has been previously found to be of no merit. Grajalva v. State, 614 S.W.2d 420, 425 (Tex.Cr.App.1981);2 Pierson v. State, 614 S.W.2d 102 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). The error was not harmless.
Alternatively the State urges us “to affirm the finding of guilt, vacate the death ‘sentence,’ and reform the judgment so as to reflect a punishment of life imprisonment,” or allow them a “reasonable time to seek commutation of ‘sentence’ from the Governor.”
When the death sentence has been improperly imposed based upon the “special verdict” of a jury impaneled in violation of Witherspoon/Adams, the long-held policy of this Court has been to reverse the cause for an entirely new trial, rather than reform the sentence to life imprisonment, the only other alternative. Article 37.071, V.A.C.C.P.; Ellison v. State, 432 S.W.2d 955 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Grider v. State, 468 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Ocker v. State, 477 S.W.2d 288 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Evans v. State, 614 S.W.2d 414 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Turner v. State, 635 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Cr.App.1982).3 We must reluctantly deny the State’s request.
Further, as to the State’s request for a “reasonable time to seek commutation of ‘sentence’ from the Governor,” we direct their attention to Tex.Cr.App.R. 310, which states in part:
“When a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals becomes final, the Clerk of the Court shall issue a mandate to the court below. A decision of the Court shall be final at the expiration of 15 days from the ruling on the final motion for rehearing or from the rendition of the decision if no motion for rehearing is filed.”
We hold that the 15 day period between the rendition of our decision and the date that the mandate issues is a “reasonable time to seek commutation of ‘sentence’ from the Governor.” Also see Tex.Cr.App.R. 311, which provides for a stay of mandate for not more than 60 days.
For the foregoing reasons the State’s Motion for Rehearing is denied.
TEAGUE, J., not participating.

. Our present holding obviously applies only to cases in which voir dire examination took place prior to the holding in Adams, supra. In cases subsequent to Adams, the contemporaneous objection rule continues to apply to the preservation of error during voir dire examination. Additionally, this holding is made in light of the United States Supreme Court’s disposition of May v. State, 618 S.W.2d 333 (Tex.Cr.App.1981), vacated in May v. Texas, 454 U.S. 959, 102 S.Ct. 497, 70 L.Ed.2d 374 (1981), on remand May v. State, 632 S.W.2d 751 (Tex.Cr.App.1982).

. Overruling Chambers v. State, 568 S.W.2d 313 (Tex.Cr.App.1978).

. This appears to be a rather burdensome remedy in a case where the only error is found in the punishment phase of the trial, Art. 37.071, supra, and where the State requests that we reform the faulty death sentence to life imprisonment, thereby waiving its right to again seek the death sentence. It is clear that the purposes for this remedy under the former Penal Code, 1927 Texas General Laws, ch. 274, Sec. 1, Texas Revised Penal Code of 1925, Art. 1257 (repealed in 1973), no longer exist under the present Penal Code’s only options of death or life imprisonment. See Ellison, supra; Grider, supra; Ocker, supra. It is the author’s opinion that this significant issue is now ripe for reconsideration by the Texas Legislature in light of the capital punishment scheme as it now stands. Accord Pierson, supra (McCormick, J. dissenting); Evans, supra (Roberts, J. dissenting).