Court Opinion

ID: 9883777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:18:20.178025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:30.426111
License: Public Domain

TEAGUE, Judge,
dissenting.
Appellant contends on rehearing that this Court erred in its original opinion when it upheld the trial court’s exclusion of venire-person Francis Bradley,1 which exclusion occurred on the trial court’s own motion. Because I find that the majority erroneously overrules without written opinion the appellant’s motion for rehearing, I must respectfully dissent. The motion should be granted and the judgment of conviction reversed.
On original submission, a majority of this Court held, inter alia, that the appellant had failed to perfect his ground of error that the trial court had erred by excusing Bradley. Nevertheless, the majority also substantively held that Bradley’s views were consistent with the constitutional restraints set out in Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968). A careful review of the voir dire examination of Bradley, in conjunction with the law, convinces me that the majority was in error on both holdings, and today it compounds that error by failing to grant appellant’s motion for rehearing and reverse the conviction.
The record reflects that the trial judge excused Bradley without the prosecuting attorney manifesting any challenge to Bradley serving as a juror in this cause. In fact, the record reflects that the prosecuting attorney not only did not challenge Bradley serving as a juror in this cause, but affirmatively declined to interpose a challenge to Bradley serving as a juror. The trial court had no legal authority to excuse Bradley on its own motion. It is self-evident under the law of this State that a trial court should not on its own motion excuse a prospective juror for cause — unless that juror is absolutely disqualified for service in a criminal case. See Esquivel v. State, 595 S.W.2d 516, 524 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). Also see Martinez v. State, 621 S.W.2d 797, 798-799 (Tex.Cr.App.1981), and the cases cited therein; as well as the cases collated in Yol. 25, Texas Digest under Jury Key No. 109.
According to the above cases, and Art. 35.19, V.A.C.C.P.,2 the term “absolute dis*412qualification” encompasses only the second, third, and fourth causes for challenge listed under Art. 35.16(a), V.A.C.C.P. I have carefully reviewed the responses Bradley gave during her voir dire examination and have not found the slightest indication that she was absolutely disqualified for jury service under the provisions of Arts. 35.16 and 35.19, supra. Thus, the trial court should not have excused Bradley sua sponte. I also find that such error was not harmless error because the State had exhausted all of its peremptory challenges prior to the conclusion of jury selection in this cause. And even if it had not, this Court in Grijalva v. State, 614 S.W.2d 420 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), in overruling Chambers v. State, 568 S.W.2d 313 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), held that the existence of unused State peremptory challenges does not serve to make harmless an erroneous exclusion of a venireperson in a capital murder case.
As to this Court’s holding that the appellant failed to make a timely and specific objection to the trial court’s excusing Bradley, I find it necessary to discuss the contemporaneous and specific objection rules of law. The contemporaneous objection rule of law is a requirement in law that before a defendant can complain on appeal about some action of the trial court or the prosecuting attorney it is incumbent upon him to make an objection at the very first opportunity — to whatever his complaint refers. See Boulware v. State, 542 S.W.2d 677 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. den., 430 U.S. 959, 97 S.Ct. 1610, 51 L.Ed.2d 811 (1977); Crawford v. State, 617 S.W.2d 925 (Tex.Cr.App.1981), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 931, 101 S.Ct. 3067, 69 L.Ed.2d 431 (1981); Zillender v. State, 557 S.W.2d 515 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, 396 U.S. 229, 233-234, 90 S.Ct. 400, 402-03, 24 L.Ed.2d 386 (1969); Williams v. Georgia, 349 U.S. 375, 75 S.Ct. 814, 99 L.Ed. 1161 (1955); Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 447-448, 85 S.Ct. 564, 567, 13 L.Ed.2d 405 (1965); Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 102 U.S. 1558, 71 L.Ed.2d 783 (1982); May v. State, 618 S.W.2d 333 (Tex.Cr.App.1981), cert. granted, 454 U.S. 959, 102 S.Ct. 497, 70 L.Ed.2d 374 (1982). This rule of law has been applied to capital murder jury selection proceedings. A corollary to the contemporaneous objection rule of law is the requirement that before error is preserved for appellate review purposes, the objection must be specific. This rule has also been applied in capital murder voir dire situations involving exclusion of jurors in the absence of challenge by the parties. Bodde v. State, 568 S.W.2d 344, 349 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Burns v. State, 556 S.W.2d 270, 278 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Moore v. State, 542 S.W.2d 664, 668 (Tex.Cr.App.1976).
The reason appellate courts require that an objection must be made as soon as the ground of objection becomes apparent is obvious. The additional requirement that the objection must be specific, in order to properly preserve error for appellate review purposes, stems from two policies. The twofold reason for the rule was succinctly stated in Zillender v. State, 557 S.W.2d 515, 517 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). There, this Court stated the following:
First, a specific objection is required to inform the trial judge of the basis of the objection and afford him the opportunity to rule on it. Second, a specific objection is required to afford opposing counsel an opportunity to remove the objection or supply other testimony. McCormick, Handbook of the Law of Evidence, Sec. 52, p. 113,115 (2d ed. 1972); 4 Jones, The Law of Evidence, Sec. 28:2, p. 276 (6th ed. 1972).
Also see Xanthull v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 481, 358 S.W.2d 631 (1962); Fowler v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 600, 352 S.W.2d 838 (1962).
Ordinarily, the responsibility for making a timely and specific objection rests with the complaining party. Failure to timely and specifically object will usually constitute waiver of the objection. However, because the instant case presents a unique situation, I am unable to agree that appellant failed to object or that the objection to the trial court’s exclusion of venireperson Bradley was untimely.
*413Although the record does not reveal any manifestation of a defense objection to Bradley’s exclusion by the trial court, sua sponte, nevertheless, it instead reflects the trial court’s acknowledgment of appellant’s objection to the exclusion of Bradley. Prior to excusing Bradley, the trial court stated into the record the following: “You [appellant] have objection to my ruling.”
As previously noted, a primary purpose of the specific objection rule is to ensure that the trial court and opposing counsel are informed of the ground of objection so that they possibly can take action to remedy or cure the noted defect or action. Another reason for the specific objection rule is to ensure that the trial court has adequate opportunity to rule on the objection. Zillender v. State, supra. In this instance, neither of the above purposes would be served by holding that the appellant did not preserve error in the trial court’s wrongful exclusion of the venireperson Bradley. The record makes it apparent to me that the focus of Bradley’s voir dire examination was on her views regarding the imposition of capital punishment, and her ability to render a verdict which would result in a sentence of death. As noted, the prosecuting attorney affirmatively declined to interpose a challenge for cause to Bradley serving as a juror. The trial court, nevertheless, sua sponte and without stating any reasons for its action, excused Bradley. However, in doing so, it explicitly stated the following: “You may have objection to my ruling [that is, to the excusing of Bradley].” Under these circumstances, I am able to state that the most apparent defense objection would have been that the trial court excused Bradley in the complete absence of authority to take such action. I therefore believe that under the above circumstances, to further require appellant to have made any additional and synonymous statements that the trial judge had just made would be to mandate that appellant was required to do a useless act. The law ordinarily does not require the doing of a useless act. In light of this record, I am unable to state that the trial court was unaware of a ground of objection; especially when it was the trial judge himself who took the initiative in noting appellant’s objection to his exclusion of Bradley. As Judge Clinton noted in his dissenting opinion on original submission, appellant should be entitled, for appellate review purposes, to rely on the trial judge’s acknowledgment of his objection. I would also hold he may do so. I also believe, in light of this record, that it would be quite unfair to the appellant to hold that no error was preserved; especially after the trial judge, in effect, assured appellant that any error in Bradley’s exclusion was in fact preserved for appellate review. In light of the action by the trial judge, I believe that to hold the error was not preserved for appellate review would tend to impugn the fairness and integrity of the judiciary. This, I decline to do.
Having previously found that such error was harmful to appellant, I would grant appellant’s motion for rehearing and reverse the judgment of conviction for the above stated reasons.
On original submission, the majority implicitly found that the trial judge’s acknowledgment of appellant’s objection was sufficient to preserve any potential error in reference to his claim that Bradley was improperly excluded in light of Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra. The majority, however, held that the trial court’s excluding Bradley was “consistent with Witherspoon; [her] answers reflect that [she] would have been unable to serve as [a] fair and impartial juror consistent with Witherspoon.” I totally disagree with this conclusion. A careful review of the transcription of Bradley’s voir dire examination reflects that she was improperly excused under the Supreme Court decisions of Witherspoon and Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980). The majority’s holding is Constitutionally unsound.
The Supreme Court in Witherspoon, supra, mandated that “a sentence of death cannot be carried out by excluding veniremen for cause simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples *414against its infliction.” 392 U.S. at 522, 88 S.Ct. at 1777, 20 L.Ed.2d 784-785. In Adams, supra, the Supreme Court held that V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Sec. 12.31(b), which statute disqualifies a prospective juror who is unwilling to swear that the mandatory penalty of death or life imprisonment for the offense of capital murder will not affect that person’s declarations on factual issues in the case, stated a disqualification standard impermissibly broader than Wither-spoon, supra, and cannot be used as a basis for disqualification independent of Wither-spoon, supra.
The voir dire examination of Bradley reflects that although she was not unalterably opposed to the death penalty, she did not think that she could “vote for the imposition of death.” However, she qualified her answers by first stating that she could “vote for the death penalty” if “it was an intentional thing or a minor that couldn’t protect [himself].” Bradley’s voir dire examination concluded with the following responses:
Bradley: Well, I would say that I don’t believe I could make the decision for a person’s death.
Defense Attorney: Which means not sure?
Bradley: That’s right.
At no time during voir dire did anyone ask Bradley any questions concerning the special issues set forth in Art. 37.071, V.A.C. C.P. Bradley’s responses also indicate that in the abstract she was unsure whether she could vote to impose the death penalty. Thus, it is conclusive that Bradley did not make it “absolutely and unmistakably clear” that she could not follow the law. The trial judge’s excluding her was improper under the guidelines of Adams, supra, and Witherspoon, supra. For this additional reason, I am compelled to dissent to the denial of appellant’s motion for rehearing without any written opinion.
Therefore, for all of the above reasons, I respectfully dissent to the action of the majority in denying the appellant leave to file his motion for rehearing.
ONION, P.J., and CLINTON and MILLER, JJ., join in this opinion.

. The pertinent portions of Bradley’s voir dire examination are either reproduced verbatim or adequately summarized in Judge Clinton’s dissenting opinion on original submission, and need not be reproduced again in this opinion.

. Art. 35.19, V.A.C.C.P., provides as follows: No juror shall be impaneled when it appears he is subject to the second, third, or fourth cause of challenge in Article 35.16, though both parties may consent.
Art. 35.16(a)(2), (3), (4) provide as follows: (a) A challenge for cause is an objection made to a particular juror, alleging some fact which renders him incapable or unfit to serve on the jury. A challenge for cause may be made by either the state or the defense for any one of the following reasons:
(2) That he has been convicted of theft or any felony;
(3) That he is under indictment or other legal accusation
(4) That he is insane or has such defect in the organs of feeling or hearing, or such bodily or mental defect of disease as to render him unfit for jury service, or that he is legally blind and either the court or the state in its discretion or the defendant or the prospective juror in his discretion is not satisfied that he is fit for jury service in that particular case.
Art. 35.16(a) also provides that “No juror shall be impaneled when it appears that he is subject to the second, third or fourth grounds of challenge for cause set forth above, although *412both parties may consent. All other grounds for challenge may be waived by the party or parties in whose favor such grounds of challenge exist.”