Court Opinion

ID: 9858637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:34:19.12567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:21.614431
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority concludes that “[venireman] Nix’s views on capital punishment were such that they would prevent or substantially impair his performance as a juror.” If by this the majority means that exclusion of Nix was permissible under the standard announced in Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985), I am somewhat puzzled. Nix rather amorphously expressed a conflict between his “emotional feelings” and “a moral feeling” about the death penalty, but when queried how he would vote if capital punishment were put to the ballot, he indicated he “would probably vote for it.” Thus, whatever substantial impairment Nix evinced, it does not appear to have derived from any profound opposition to the death penalty. It was not shown he could not answer Article 37.071 special issues honestly and in accordance with the evidence on account of any such opposition.
Thus, if we are to conclude he was excluda-ble for cause, it must be because we find a basis in the record to support the trial court’s conclusion that Nix harbored a bias against some other phase of the law upon which the State was entitled to rely. Article 35.16(b)(3), V.A.C.C.P.
Here, for reasons not well articulated in answers to the prosecutor and the trial court, Nix demonstrated an unwillingness to convict a capital accused without hearing from the accused himself, and seemed to hold the State to a burden of proof more stringent than beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither attitude stemmed from conscientious scruples against the death penalty so much as from a desire for certainty before imposing it. Nevertheless, as Judge Teague aptly instructed in his recent plurality opinion in Hernandez v. State, 757 S.W.2d 744, (Tex.Cr.App.1988), except in the particulars the analysis is much the same. Nix’s responses do indeed provide a basis from which a rational trial court could conclude he had a bias against the law which he was incapable of setting aside. Under other circumstances we could say the trial court accordingly did not err in finding he was “substantially impaired.” However, I cannot agree with the majority that the error in the trial court’s failing to entertain appellant’s attempt to rehabilitate the venireman was “harmless.”
In the past, and especially since the decision of the Supreme Court in Wainwright v. Witt, supra, this Court has paid lip service to the trial court’s discretion in ruling upon State’s challenges for cause. A typical statement appears in Ex parte Russell, 720 S.W.2d 477, at 485 (Tex.Cr.App.1986):
“In making the determination of the qualification of a juror, great deference is to be given to the decision of the trial judge, who has broad discretion in his rulings in challenges, who was present, heard the tenor of the voice of the prospective juror, his demeanor, etc.”
See also, e.g., Smith v. State, 676 S.W.2d 379, at 387 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Smith v. State, 683 S.W.2d 393, at 401, n. 5 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Vanderbilt v. State, 629 S.W.2d 709 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). Having *189granted this discretion to trial courts, however, it seems to me we turn around and effectively revoke it when we continually conclude our discussions on these points of error with holdings that “we find” the venireman to have been substantially impaired, or that “clearly” he was so. At least in the context of what has been termed “equivocating” or “vacillating” veniremen, see Williams v. State, 622 S.W.2d 116, 121 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) (Teague, J., dissenting), it seems to me that due deference to the trial court means that he has discretion to find such a venireman is not in fact impaired, in spite of some obvious difficulty he may have. Categorically to hold, or at least to imply as our holdings do, that such a venireman is in every case substantially impaired sends a message to trial courts that in fact they do not have the discretion to overrule State’s challenges for cause in the premises. Rather, as a matter of appellate review, this Court should simply hold there is a reasonable basis in the record to support a finding by the trial court that the venireman will be impaired in his ability to abide by his oath as a juror. Hernandez v. State, supra. Such a standard of appellate review does not preclude the trial court from exercising its discretion to find that, what from a cold appellate record may appear to be a truly equivocating or vacillating venireman, has actually proven himself, by demeanor, tone or howsoever, able in fact to follow the law. See Perillo v. State, 758 S.W.2d 567, at 577 (Tex.Cr.App.1988).
Having vested the trial court with this discretion to arbitrate challengeability of veniremen who appear, at least on a cold record, “to be genuinely noncommittal, vacillating, equivocal, or uncertain,” Hernandez v. State, supra, at 753, we should never allow it to exercise that discretion unilaterally; that is, without affording the opponent of the challenge the opportunity to rehabilitate the venireman. It is true that as questioning ended in this cause a clear basis existed for the trial court to find Nix unable to put aside his own apparent bias against the law. We cannot say, as the Court effectively does today, that questioning by appellant’s counsel in the instant case may not have laid a groundwork for the trial court to find Nix could in fact follow the law. We cannot say, for instance, that appellant’s counsel could not have convinced Nix that his own peculiar standard for degree of certainty was actually no more stringent than the “reasonable doubt” standard mandated by law. By refusing to allow counsel this opportunity, the trial court effectively insulated itself from having to exercise that discretion we are so quick to afford. Moreover, for this Court now to reason that such error is “harmless,” by concluding in our categorical way that “Mr. Nix’s views on capital punishment were such that they would prevent or substantially impair his performance as a juror[,]” is actually to condone the trial court’s abdication of its proper function in a capital voir dire. See McGee v. State, 774 S.W.2d 229, (Tex.Cr.App.1989) (Clinton, J., dissenting).
In this I cannot join, and therefore I respectfully dissent.
TEAGUE, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully file this dissenting opinion.
The majority opinion by Presiding Judge McCormick overrules appellant’s third point of error, namely: “The trial court erred in excusing venire member Wilhelmia Johnson for cause because the record does not show that she was unfit to serve on a capital murder jury and this error denied appellant his right to an impartial jury under the United States and Texas Constitutions”, because it concludes that appellant’s objection at trial, namely: “We object to the court not giving us a chance to rehabilitate the juror”, fails to comport with his point of error. It further overrules the point of error because it finds appellant failed to object to the exclusion of prospective juror Johnson. Given the totality of the record, I find that the majority opinion is just dead wrong by both of its holdings. Furthermore, Rule 74, Rules of Appellate Procedure, which governs the preparation of a brief in a death penalty case, see also Rule 210, Rules of Appellate Procedure, does not mandate such a technical view of *190appellant’s complaint as the majority opinion requires. Lastly, if the majority of this Court does not believe that appellant's court appointed attorney has substantially complied with the rules, it should order that this part of appellant’s brief be re-briefed, or grant appellant an out of time appeal.
The record clearly reflects that notwithstanding that she saw the merits of assessing someone life in prison, rather than death, prospective juror Johnson was a very strong “pro death penalty” juror. I find that the train got off the track when the prosecutor asked her a multifariously worded question about how she might answer the special issues: “Q: Are you saying because of the way you feel you could not answer those questions ‘yes’ based upon evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that you would need a greater amount of proof than that? (My emphasis.) A: Right.” The prosecutor also asked her: “... you would need proof beyond any doubt in your mind before you could answer those special issues ‘yes’?”, and she answered: “Uh-huh.” The record, however, reflects that Johnson later responded to the following statements by the trial judge in the following manner: “All right, and the burden of proof is just beyond a reasonable doubt. A: Right. It’s not beyond any doubt because they can’t prove that a future act will occur beyond any doubt. A: Right. The Court: Right? Johnson: Uh-huh. They can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. A: Right.” Johnson also stated that merely because she had found someone guilty of capital murder she would not “necessarily” answer special issue number one, the deliberateness issue, in the affirmative. However, she did state affirmatively that she thought it was impossible to answer in the affirmative special issue number two, the future dangerousness issue. Nevertheless, she later agreed with the trial judge that the State could prove the answers to the special issues “beyond a reasonable doubt”, and, after being given by the trial judge the “The sun’s risen every day for the last 5,000 years” example of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” Johnson told the trial judge that she would hold the State to the standard “beyond a reasonable doubt.” When, after the trial judge went over in depth with Johnson the case law distinction between the words “intentional” and “deliberate”, with Johnson at all times agreeing with the trial judge that the law provided for a difference, Johnson stubbed her nervous toe, by agreeing with the trial judge’s statement, “You understand it and you’re still — you’re going to automatically find that his conduct was deliberate. A: Yes.” The prosecutor then stated: “We should suggest there’s cause.” Counsel for appellant was then permitted to examine Johnson. By asking clearly worded questions, contrary to many confusingly worded questions that had been previously asked by the prosecutor, Johnson answered the latter’s questions with clearly stated answers. Appellant’s counsel clearly established that Johnson was not disqualified from serving as a juror because she could not comprehend the legal distinction between “deliberately” and “intentionally”. However, there is no question that appellant’s counsel wanted to make the record absolutely certain that Johnson was not disqualified for that reason. The trial judge, however, out of the blue and without warning, then stated: “I’m going to cut you [defense counsel] off. I’m going to sustain the motion [sic].” Trial counsel for appellant then stated: “We object to the court not giving us the chance to rehabilitate the juror.” The trial judge then stated, in response: “Okay, Mrs. Johnson, we’re going to excuse you as a juror.”
Given what happened in the trial court, it should be obvious to almost anyone that the majority opinion clearly misperceives what the record reflects and what appellant contends by way of his point of error, and his argument thereunder. Especially is this true when one carefully reviews the questions that defense counsel asked Johnson and the answers Johnson gave, in conjunction with what the trial judge did “out of the blue.” From a totality of Johnson’s voir dire examination, when the trial judge “out of the blue” sustained the State’s challenge for cause, Johnson was not then *191subject to the prosecutor’s challenge for cause, namely: “We should suggest there’s cause.” (Perhaps the prosecutor’s real “cause” was the following: “For reasons I don’t want to give, I don’t want prospective juror Johnson serving on this jury, and I don’t want to use a peremptory strike on her either.”)
The State, in its appellate brief, asserts: “The situation presented in the instant case appears to be a mirror image of that discussed in Sawyers v. State, 724 S.W.2d 24, 28 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) ...” (Page 18 of State’s Brief.) I find that it is possible to make such a statement only if one looks at the record through fogged up glasses.
In Sawyers, supra, the issue that the defendant presented was that the trial judge erred in terminating the defense attorney’s questioning of a prospective juror. However, the objection at trial was the following: “Your Honor, for the purpose of the record, we object to him [the prospective juror] being excused for cause.” In rejecting the defendant’s complaint, this Court pointed out the following: “No objection was voiced as to the limitation nor was request made for additional time of the voir dire examination.” (28). (My emphasis.) The record here, however, clearly reflects that counsel was objecting to the trial judge’s action in limiting counsel’s voir dire examination, because he had not completed his “rehabilitation” voir dire examination. Here, while in the process of removing any doubt about prospective juror Johnson’s being able to serve as a juror in this cause, on the issue of understanding the legal distinction between the words “intentional” and “deliberate”, the trial judge, out of the blue, terminated the voir dire and sustained the State’s previously uttered “We should suggest there’s cause.” At that moment in time, under this Court’s totality of the voir dire examination rule, Johnson was clearly not subject to being challenged for cause because she did not understand and could not appreciate the legal distinction between the words “intentional” and “deliberate”, and appellant’s attorney timely and properly objected to the trial judge cutting him off when he was nearing the point where not even a majority of this Court could say beyond a reasonable doubt that prospective juror Johnson had not been thoroughly rehabilitated on this point. Appellant’s point of error on appeal clearly comports with the complaint he made in the trial court.
Given the record of this cause, to wire around this appellant in this death penalty case, for the reasons that the majority opinion gives, should shock almost anyone’s conscience. It certainly does mine.
I therefore respectfully dissent to the reasons the majority opinion gives to overrule appellant’s third point of error. This, however, does not mean that I agree with everything else the majority opinion states — because I don’t. I do agree, however, with what Judge Clinton has stated in the dissenting opinion that he has filed in this cause.