Court Opinion

ID: 9762750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:30:30.788217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:37.208903
License: Public Domain

BAIRD, Judge,
dissenting.
On original submission, we found the trial judge abused his discretion in permitting the State to ask an improper question. Ante at 789. We also found that as a result of the responses to the improper question the State was able to successfully challenge several veniremembers for cause. Ibid. We then stated: “Just as the denial of a proper question by the trial court represents an abuse of discretion, so should the allowance of an improper question.” Ibid. (Citation omitted.) In reaching this conclusion we cited Maddux v. State, 862 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tex.Cr.App.1993), which in turn cited Nunfio v. State, 808 S.W.2d 482, 485 (Tex.Cr.App.1991).
Both Maddux and Nunfio stand for the proposition that when the trial judge errs in preventing the defense from asking a proper question, the error is not subject to a harm analysis and is always reversible error. However, neither Maddux nor Nunfio is applicable because the instant error was in permitting the State to ask an improper question rather than preventing the defendant from asking a proper question. Instead, the correct analysis was stated in Payton v. State, 572 S.W.2d 677 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). In noncapital cases, when a State’s challenge for cause was erroneously granted, the next step is to determine if the State used all of its peremptory challenges. If the State used its peremptory challenges, appellant was harmed.
In its motion for rehearing the State contends “this ease should be remanded for a harm analysis, or this Court itself should determine that there was no harm.” State’s motion for rehearing, pg. 6.1 In cases where we can determine whether the State exhausted its peremptory challenges, there is no need to remand the case to the court of appeals to perform the harm analysis. Zinger v. State, 932 S.W.2d 511, 514 (Tex.Cr.App.1996). This is such a case; the State used its ten peremptory challenges. TR. vol. I, pg. 49. Therefore, the error in the instant case is reversible error. Accordingly, I dissent to the decision to remand this case to the Court of Appeals.

. This is an exact quote from the State’s motion. The majority misstates the ground for rehearing by omitting the italicized portion. Ante at 787.