Court Opinion

ID: 9776136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:19:40.09953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:34.726328
License: Public Domain

MEYERS, Judge,
concurring.
I concur. In Texas, a prospective juror who cannot consider the full range of punishment, as set out by the law, is challengeable for cause. Fuller v. State, 829 S.W.2d 191, 200 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), cert. denied 508 U.S. 941, 113 S.Ct. 2418, 124 L.Ed.2d 640 (1993); see also Woodkins v. State, 542 S.W.2d 855, 862 (Tex.Crim.App.1976).
The range of punishment is set by statute. In the present case, the relevant statute makes no distinction between one convicted as a party and one convicted as a principal— both are subject to the same range of punishment if found guilty. As the majority points out, a juror who cannot keep an open mind as to the full range of punishment — that is, remain open to the idea that in some circumstances the minimum punishment will be appropriate and in some circumstances the maximum will be appropriate — is challengea-ble for cause via Article 35.16(c)(2) or Article 35.16(b)(3) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
*407The rule set out in the majority opinion is that a prospective juror who cannot consider that in some circumstances the minimum punishment allowed would be appropriate for one convicted as a principal would be chal-lengeable for cause. I note that the same rule would apply in the opposite situation — a prospective juror who could not consider that in some circumstances the maximum punishment allowed would be appropriate for one convicted as a party would also be challenge-able for cause.
With these remarks, I join the majority opinion.