Court Opinion

ID: 9766832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:00:12.524247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:26.584106
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
dissenting.
By his reliance upon Cuevas v. State, 575 S.W.2d 543 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), and Smith v. State, 573 S.W.2d 763 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), to find the trial court erred in failing to sustain appellant’s challenge for cause, I *258presume that Presiding Judge Onion, writing for the majority, believes that venireman Enderli evinced an irredeemable bias against the law in that he could not consider the entire range of punishment applicable in a capital case. I had thought that in Hernandez v. State, 757 S.W.2d 744, (Tex.Cr.App., No. 69,649, delivered June 29, 1988), albeit in a plurality opinion, we had put to rest the notion that a capital venireman is subject to challenge for cause merely because he categorically opposes imposition of either the death penalty, or for that matter, as here, life imprisonment. In the context of special issues capital jurors are not called upon to consider range of punishment, but only to answer special issues honestly and without conscious distortion or bias. Only if it finds that a venireman’s categorical opposition to the death penalty or life imprisonment would create a substantial likelihood of such distortion or bias may the trial court reasonably conclude the venireman is impaired. To the extent of conflict, Smith and Cuevas have been overruled. Hernandez v. State, supra, at p. 751-52.
The majority nevertheless holds that Enderli is biased as a matter of law, and that no amount of assurance that he could set that aside may be heard. Cited in support of this proposition are, inter alia, Cordova v. State, 733 S.W.2d 175 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), Clark v. State, 717 S.W.2d 910 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), and Anderson v. State, 633 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.Cr.App.1982). All derive ultimately from Hooper v. State, 100 Tex.Cr.R. 147, 272 S.W. 493 (1925). The bias harbored by the venireman in Hooper, supra, was one “in favor of or against the defendant” under then Article 692, subdivision 12. See now Article 35.16(a)(9), V.A.C. C.P. Contrasting the venireman who does not personally know an accused, but who “through hearsay, or otherwise,” has formed an opinion as to his guilt, which venireman may yet serve if he convinces the trial court his opinion will not influence his verdict, see now Id. § (a)(10), the Court in Hooper, supra, observed:
“There is a fundamental distinction between prejudice on the part of a juror and the entertaining of an opinion on his part. When it appears that the feeling had by the proposed juror is really one of prejudice, and that it is directed toward the accused, it is not ordinarily deemed possible for such a juror to be qualified by stating that he can lay aside such prejudice, etc. It is easily possible for one who entertains a deep-seated prejudice to believe himself able to lay it aside, but human experience teaches the contrary.”
272 S.W. at 495. In Anderson v. State, supra, the Court reaffirmed this policy, holding that when the evidence indisputably reveals a bias on the part of a potential juror against the accused, no assertion on his part that he can overcome that bias will prevail. See also Gonzales v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 49, 331 S.W.2d 748 (1960); Williams v. State, 565 S.W.2d 63 (Tex.Cr.App.1978).
In Clark and Cordova, both supra, the Court extended Anderson, sub silentio, to hold that veniremen who are biased against the law, as a matter of law, may not be rehabilitated simply by stating they can put that bias aside. To my way of thinking this extension of the Hooper policy was ill-advised. Human experience does not teach that a juror can never follow a law he dislikes anymore than it teaches he cannot ignore a conclusion he has reached through extrinsic sources and render a verdict in accordance with the evidence.
At any rate, Anderson, supra, and hence, Clark and Cordova, both supra, still leave the assessment of whether a venireman has shown himself to be biased “as a matter of law” to the trial court. This is really only to say that in some cases the venireman’s bias may not be completely self evident, and the trial judge will have to make a judgment call as to whether the venireman is in fact prejudiced — which is really to say that the venireman is not biased “as a matter of law,” for if he were, there would be no call for the trial court to exercise its discretion. Such confusion of terminology has led this Court to err in the instant cause.
A venireman who confesses, as did End-erli initially, that he feels anyone guilty of *259capital murder should be punished by death, has not shown himself incapable of answering special issues without conscious distortion. That such a venireman would “lean” toward affirmative answers likewise does not disqualify him; for as was pointed out in Hernandez v. State, supra, at 751:
"[T]o the extent that a juror’s categorical rejection of the death penalty might influence him not to find beyond a reasonable doubt a probability of future dangerousness, even given evidence which would be held sufficient by a person unopposed to capital punishment, he is eligible for jury service. [Footnote omitted.] Likewise, one whose beliefs favoring the death penalty might influence him to more readily find a probability of future dangerousness is equally qualified for jury service in a capital case.”
It is not remotely dispositive of the challenge that Enderli could not “consider” life imprisonment, since he would not be called upon to do so. Furthermore, that Enderli would not desire someone like himself on his jury if he were accused of capital murder means nothing. Peremptory challenges are designed for excluding such veniremen, at the option of either party.
It is true Enderli indicated that having found an accused guilty of capital murder, he probably could never answer special issue one negatively. It is also true, however, that he told the trial court during what the majority calls a “lecture,” that whatever bias had been engendered by the death of his friend would not affect his answers to special issues, and that he could “put that all aside” in performing his duty as a juror. The majority finds that Enderli was “clearly” not rehabilitated. It is not so clear to me he was not, and obviously the trial court believed that he was. This was simply a “vacillating” venireman. In other contexts we have been quick to defer to the judgment of trial courts when, under sufficiently precise questioning a venireman proves himself “to be genuinely noncommittal, vacillating, equivocal, or un-certainf,]” Hernandez v. State, supra, at 753, and the court grants a challenge for cause. There is no reason we should not afford the trial court the same deference when it rules against a defendant’s challenge in the face of a genuinely vacillating venireman. The proper questions were asked here, viz: whether his opposition to life imprisonment would cause Enderli to thwart the law by answering special issues in accordance with his bias, irrespective of the evidence. Enderli gave conflicting answers. Under such circumstances we should uphold the trial court’s ruling either that the venireman is impaired or that he is not.
The majority’s dispositions of points pertaining to veniremen Woodall, Reynolds and Plexco suffer from the same infirmities as those outlined above.
I therefore respectfully dissent.
CAMPBELL, J., joins.