Court Opinion

ID: 2930798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-15 01:00:31.862482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:39:48.475942
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed November 23, 2005

Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed November
23, 2005.
 
 
In The
 
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
 
NO. 14-04-00482-CR
____________
 
BRANT RAY
BLANCHARD, Appellant
 
V.
 
THE STATE
OF TEXAS, Appellee
___________________________________________________
 
On Appeal from the 185th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 955,512
___________________________________________________
 
C O N C U R R I N G   O P I N I O N
Notwithstanding my concern about
the trial court=s
limitation of time for completion of voir dire, I am constrained by controlling
authority to concur with the majority.  
The trial court exercised its
discretion after hearing conflicting evidence relative to misconduct by juror
number eleven and overruled appellant=s motion
for new trial.  We must defer to the
trial court=s decision to accept or reject
any part of the testimony proffered by appellant=s trial
counsel.  Ford v. State, 129
S.W.3d 541, 547 (Tex. App.CDallas,
2003 pet. ref=d).

I write to express my deep
concern about the judicial penchant for time restrictions on voir dire.  During oral argument, appellant=s counsel
suggested that appellant=s trial
attorney was forced to rely on the accuracy and completeness of jurors= answers
to the State=s questions because of the trial
court=s time
constraints.  The trial court allowed
thirty minutes for each side.  It is my
considered opinion that a thirty-minute limitation for voir dire effectively
precludes defense counsel from fulfilling the requirement to ask specific
questions of each juror in order to preserve error for juror misconduct.  See Gonzales v. State, 3 S.W.3d
915, 916 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Armstrong v. State, 897 S.W.2d 361, 363B64 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1995).
 
/s/        Charles W. Seymore
Justice
 
Judgment
rendered and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed November 23, 2005.
Panel
consists of Justices Hudson, Edelman, and Seymore.  (Hudson, J., majority.)
Do Not
Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).