Court Opinion

ID: 9776384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:33:12.763892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:38.132724
License: Public Domain

MEYERS, J.,
delivered this concurring opinion.
Since promulgation of the new harmless error rule, Tex.R.App. PRoc. 44.2, we have issued just one opinion analyzing voir dire error thereunder. Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). That case involved the erroneous removal of a prospective juror for cause. Assessing harm and concluding the defendant’s “substantial rights” were not violated, the Court reasoned:
[A] defendant has no right that any particular individual serve on the jury. The defendant’s only substantial right is that the jurors who do serve be quali-ned. The defendant’s rights go to those who serve, not to those who are excluded.
Id. at 393. The instant case involves the denial of a proper question. The determinative question for the Court of Appeals on remand is whether the “substantial right” at issue in Jones (essentially, the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury) is different from the “substantial right” at issue in the context here. With these comments, I concur in the judgment of the Court.