Court Opinion

ID: 9660753
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:20:06.089767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:21.845179
License: Public Domain

TEAGUE, Judge,
dissenting.
I wholeheartedly join all of the scholarly dissenting opinion that Judge Clinton has filed in this cause. His words of wisdom, concerning jurors who violate the usual instruction that is given by the trial judge — that jurors are not to discuss how long the defendant will be required to serve his sentence1 — are long overdue.
I observe that Judge Clinton has set out on page 458 a proposed instruction to jurors as to why they should not bother themselves with our parole law when they are deliberating on what punishment should be assessed the defendant.
I would add to his suggested instruction the following: “Violation of this instruction can subject the offender to contempt of court and a possible punishment of a fine of not more than $500 or by confinement in the county jail for not more than six months, or by both a fine of not more than $500 and confinement in the county jail for not more than six months.”
Art. 1911a, V.A.C.S., of which all trial judges of this State are aware, expressly provides that trial judges of this State have the power of contempt and may punish any offender with a fine not to exceed $500 or confinement in the county jail for not more than six months or by both such fine and confinement. A juror who violates a trial judge’s jury instruction that he or she is not to discuss how long a defendant will be required to serve his or her sentence subjects himself or herself to contempt of court.
Although we are all aware that some trial judges of this State have invoked their contempt power and held jurors in contempt for being late to court, for not showing up for jury duty, and other transgressions, I am unaware of any instance where any trial judge of this State has ever held a juror in contempt of court for violating the usual instruction that he or she is not to discuss what effect, if any, our parole law might have on his or her verdict of guilt or punishment. And I believe that this omission has contributed to more and more jurors violating the instruction.
I firmly believe that if trial judges of this State had in the past been more prone to invoke and apply their contempt power to jurors who had violated the usual admonition not to discuss the parole law, a contention such as that made in this cause would be infrequently urged in our appellate courts, rather than frequently asserted in our appellate courts as appears to be the case today. I am firmly convinced that if more trial judges would punish violators by remanding them to the county jail to serve at least three (3) days, not only would such get the attention of the violator, but word would quickly spread in the district or county that the trial judge or trial judges of that district or county mil not tolerate such a violation.

. The usual instruction that is given in our trial courts is as follows: "You are further charged as part of the law in this case that you are not to discuss among yourselves how long the accused will be required to serve the sentence you decide to impose. Such matters come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board of Pardons and Paroles and the Governor of the State of Texas, and should not be considered by you.”