Court Opinion

ID: 9768590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 06:09:03.657916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:42.037975
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION
WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.
The question which controls the proper disposition of this case is not whether the court should have allowed more time than 30 minutes but whether the trial court’s action in limiting counsel for the state and for appellant to 30 minutes to complete their voir dire examination of the jury panel, following the examination and remarks of the court, requires reversal without any showing (1) that the defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges or (2) that he was required to accept an objectionable juror.
Appellant failed to avail himself of the opportunity afforded him by Art. 40:09 C.C.P. to have his list of peremptory challenges included in the record on appeal, or to show by bill of exception presented pursuant to Art. 36.20 C.C.P. that he exhausted such challenges, or that an objectionable juror served on the jury.
Art. 40.09 C.C.P. provides, in part, that the clerk prepare an appellate record comprising a true copy of the matter designated by the parties.
*673Section 2 provides:
“Each party may file with the clerk a written designation specifying matter for inclusion in the record. The failure of the clerk to include designated matter will not be ground for complaint on appeal if the designation specifying such matter be not filed with the clerk within sixty days after notice of appeal is given.”
Art. 36.20 C.C.P. furnished another means whereby appellant could have shown that he exhausted his challenges or was required to accept an objectionable juror.
So far as this record shows, the jury may have been chosen from the 16 that had been fully examined during the time allowed.
The following authorities support the view of the writer that a showing of injury was necessary in order to obtain reversal.
Ross v. State, 102 Tex.Cr.R. 364, 277 S.W. 667, 668, opinion by Judge Hawkins.
“Bill of exception No. 5 complains of the refusal of the court to permit counsel for appellant to ask the prospective jurors certain questions. It is doubtful if the bill should be considered because of its form, but, if considered, we are of the opinion it presents no error. It fails to show that any objectionable jurors were forced upon appellant by reason of the court’s ruling.’’
35 Tex.Jur.2d, p. 176 (Footnote 17)
“In order that reversal may be predicated on refusal of trial court to permit question to be propounded on voir dire, it is necessary to show that accused was forced to accept objectionable juror because of being required to exercise peremptory challenge to stand aside one who should have been challenged for cause. Williams v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 179 S.W.2d 297.”
I respectfully dissent.