Court Opinion

ID: 9763571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:49:49.644255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:19.826900
License: Public Domain

BURGESS, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment. I write only to express my thoughts on point of error two. The record is silent regarding the method or procedure the Court used in sealing the personal information about the jurors. In any event, it seems all participants were, and continue to be, under the impression Tex. Code Cmm. PROC. ANN. art. 35.29 (Vernon 1994)5 prohibits the parties from “having access” to that information. The majority apparently follows that thinking when they hold appellant did not show good cause. I disagree. I read the statute to only prohibit disclosure of that information to third parties, except by application and a showing of good cause.
While not exactly on point, in Saur v. State, 918 S.W.2d 64 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1996, no pet.), the Court of Appeals dealt with the trial judge requiring counsel to surrender the juror information sheets. The court stated: ‘While we think it could be error for the trial judge to require the surrender of the jury information sheets, we also think no harm was shown under the record before this court.” The court recognized a distinction between the jury lists and the juror information sheets. The court held Tex.Code Crim. Proo. Ann. art. 35.26 (Vernon 1989) only requires the parties deliver their jury lists to the clerk, not the juror information sheets. The court did note where the protection of the jurors is an issue, it might be appropriate to take up the information sheets at the conclusion of the trial with appropriate instruction to counsel about disclosure and counsel should be forewarned so notes could be taken from the sheets.
This is certainly in line with my analysis of article 35.29. As in Saur, Hooker has not shown how he was harmed by being denied the information. As noted by the majority, the trial court granted appellant’s motion to unseal the records as to the presiding juror’s information. Hooker has not shown that juror was even interviewed, much less uncooperative. Consequently, I would overrule point of error two on this basis.

. Article 35.29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states:
Personal information about jurors
Information collected by the court or by a prosecuting attorney during the jury selection process about a person who serves as a juror, including the juror’s home address, home telephone number, social security number, driver's license number, and other personal information, is confidential and may not be disclosed by the court, the prosecuting attorney, the defense counsel, or any court personnel except on application by a party in the trial or on application by a bona fide member of the news media acting in such capacity to the court in which the person is serving or did serve as a juror. On a showing of good cause, the court shall permit disclosure of the information sought.