Court Opinion

ID: 9811643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:26:43.945293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:47.547594
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION
DON BURGESS, Justice.
I vigorously dissent. Obviously I dissent to the result, see Carroll v. State, 997 S.W.2d 399 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1999), but my real dissent is to the majority’s determination of “the scope of the instant remand.”
The Scope of the Remand
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, in their unpublished opinion,1 stated:
... The court of appeals did not perform a harmless error analysis. The State petitioned this Court to review the court of appeals’ failure to conduct a harm analysis.
This court recently decided that the erroneous denial of a defense challenge for cause is subject to harmless error analysis under Rule 44.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Johnson v. State, [43 S.W.3d 1] (Tex. Crim.App.2001). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand this cause to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Johnson.
Clearly the Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with our earlier majority opinion on the issue of whether the trial court erred when it overruled the challenge for cause. If not, they would have adopted Chief Justice Walker’s dissenting opinion,2 found no error, reversed this court and affirmed the trial court.3 Yet, they remanded this case for a harm analysis as mandated by Johnson v. State, 43 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.Crim.App.2001).
In spite of this, the new majority 4 now revisits the issue of error, finds no error and affirms the trial court. They do this under the authority of several cases which hold a Court of Appeals may not be restricted on remand by the Court of Criminal Appeals. However, there are more recent cases where the Court of Criminal Appeals has limited the scope of a remand or actually reversed a Court of Appeals for exceeding the scope of a remand. In Connor v. State, 877 S.W.2d 325 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), the court limited the scope of the remand to the motion for new trial issue, thus precluding the Court of Appeals from considering the restitution issue. Id. at 328. (Baird dissenting). In Williams v. State, 790 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex.Crim.App.1990), the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for the Court of Appeals “to decide whether the statement in issue was made ⅛ furtherance of what appellant concedes was an ongoing conspiracy.” On remand, Williams v. State, 815 S.W.2d 743 (Tex.App.-Waco 1991), the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Thereafter in Williams v. State, 829 S.W.2d 216, 217 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), the *418Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the Waco Court again holding the Court of Appeals’ reasoning in its opinion exceeded the scope of the remand order and finding the Court of Appeals erred in not fully complying with the remand order. Furthermore, in McGlothlin v. State, 848 S.W.2d 139, 141 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), the Court of Criminal Appeals granted the State Prosecuting Attorney’s motion for rehearing in order to revise the scope of the remand. At least one court of appeals has specifically recognized the Court of Criminal Appeals’ ability to limit the scope of a remand, Combest v. State, 981 S.W.2d 958, 959 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, pet. ref'd), and two others, Waco in Calhoun v. State, 951 S.W.2d 803, 807 (Tex.App.-Waco 1997, pet. ref'd.), and El Paso in Johnson v. State, 975 S.W.2d 644, 648-49 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1998, pet. ref'd), have recognized it, but distinguished their cases. Contrary to the majority, I do not believe established precedent allows this court to re-examine the issue before us previously.
Assuming arguendo, that the remand is not restricted, there is another compelling doctrine which should preclude our reconsideration of the complete issue-the “law of the case” doctrine. This doctrine has long been recognized by the Court of Criminal Appeals, e.g. Penny v. State, 903 S.W.2d 715, 746-47 (Tex.Crim.App.1995); Satterwhite v. State, 858 S.W.2d 412, 429-30 (Tex.Crim.App.1993); Ware v. State, 736 S.W.2d 700, 701 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); and this court. In Carroll v. State, 42 S.W.3d 129, 131 (Tex.Crim.App.2001), the court stated:
Under the doctrine known as “law of the case,” “an appellate court’s resolution of a question of law in a previous appeal of the same case will govern the disposition of the same issue when raised in a subsequent appeal.” Howlett v. State, 994 S.W.2d 663, 666 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (citations omitted). However, the doctrine’s application is not inflexible. Id. One of the circumstances in which an appellate court may reconsider its earlier disposition of a point of law is when there has been a change in the controlling law between the time of the first appellate determination and the time that the case is brought on a second appeal. See 5 AmJuk 2d Appellate Review § 613 (1995); E.H. Schopler, Annotation, Erroneous decision as law of the case on subsequent appellate review, 87 A.L.R.2d 271, 357-58, 1963 WL 13469 (1963 & Supp.2000);....
In Howlett v. State, 994 S.W.2d 663, 666 (Tex.Crim.App.l999)(footnote omitted) the court said:
In its most basic form the doctrine “provides that an appellate court’s resolution of a question of law in a previous appeal of the same case will govern the disposition of the same issue when raised in a subsequent appeal.” Law of the case is a court-made doctrine designed to promote judicial consistency and efficiency that eliminates the need for appellate courts to prepare opinions discussing previously resolved matters. Ex parte Granger, supra; LeBlanc v. State, 826 S.W.2d 640, 644 (Tex.App.Houston [14 th Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd). The doctrine assures trial courts that they can rely on the appellate court’s disposition of an issue in presiding over the case and provides an incentive for trial courts to follow these decisions closely. See Lee v. State, 67 Tex.Crim. 137, 148 S.W. 706, 713 (1912) (opinion on motion for rehearing) (if rule were otherwise “trial courts would in a great measure be at sea, and would feel inclined and be authorized to give but little weight to the decisions of the [appellate] court.”).
The doctrine’s application is not inflexible. Ex parte Granger, 850 S.W.2d at 516. An appellate court may reconsider its earlier disposition of a point of *419law if the court determines there are “exceptional” circumstances that mitigate against relying on its prior decision. Id. Where the facts and issues are identical in a second appeal, the most common “exceptional” circumstance is that the earlier appears to have been “clearly erroneous.” Id.
This court in Baggett v. State, 691 S.W.2d 779, 781-82 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1985), rev’d on other grounds, 722 S.W.2d 700 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), acknowledged the validity of the doctrine and said:
... This ground of error is identical to a ground of error in the first appeal and we dealt with the question squarely in the prior opinion at page 913 of Baggett, supra. On this second appeal, in the state of this record, we are met at the threshold with the well-established and thoroughly entrenched “law of the case” doctrine. Generally, the “law of the case” is that principle or concept whereby, when there have been determinations of certain questions of law made on a first or prior appeal, then that ruling or decision will be held to govern the case or cause throughout its subsequent stages including a retrial on a remand and a subsequent appeal. 6 Tex. Jur. 3d, Appellate Review, Sec. 901 (1980). The doctrine should be abandoned only if it is shown that the decision was clearly wrong and harmful. That has not been shown on this second appeal. The doctrine should be departed from only in exceptional cases. Warren v. State, 523 S.W.2d 237 (Tex.Crim.App.1975); Gragg v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 386, 214 S.W.2d 292 (Tex.Crim.App.1948); Vargas v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 666, 298 S.W. 591 (Tex.Crim.App.1927).
The Appellant in this second appeal makes no additional effort or record to demonstrate that the first opinion was clearly wrong. We sanguinely hold that the “law of the case” doctrine is applicable and controlling.
Therefore, under the “law of the case” doctrine, the majority should be bound by the previous opinion unless it was clearly wrong. It was not, nor does the majority attempt to show it was.
The Initial Substantive Issue5
A venireperson who is shown to be biased as a matter of law must be excused if he is challenged for cause. Cordova v. State, 733 S.W.2d 175, 182 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). It is left to the discretion of the trial court to initially determine whether such a bias exists and the court’s decision will be reviewed in light of all of the answers given. Green v. State, 840 S.W.2d 394, 405 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), overruled on other grounds by Trevino v. State, 991 S.W.2d 849, 853 (Tex.Crim.App.1999); see also Faulder v. State, 745 S.W.2d 327, 339-40 (Tex.Crim.App.l987)(“If the prospective juror is not disqualified as a matter of law, and states that he can set aside his bias against the law that governs the punishment for a particular crime, then the trial court’s refusal to sustain the defendant’s challenge for cause will be reviewed in light of all of the answers the prospective juror gives.”)
After the attorneys completed their voir dire presentations, the judge brought two venirepersons before the bench, Ms. C and W.F. Ms. C first said she could not consider the minimum punishment, she was then rehabilitated by the prosecutor and said she could follow the law. Nevertheless, the judge granted the challenge for cause. W.F. first said he could not consider the minimum punishment and he was then rehabilitated by the prosecutor. The judge denied this challenge for cause. “[P]ro-spective jurors must be able to accept that, *420for the offense in question, the minimum legal punishment will be appropriate in some circumstances and the maximum legal punishment will be appropriate in some circumstances. In other words, prospective jurors must be able to keep an open mind with respect to punishment until they hear the evidence in the case being tried.” Johnson v. State, 982 S.W.2d 403, 406 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). A venireperson who repeatedly asserts he will not follow the law, evidencing a strong conviction, will not be rehabilitated by “ritually reciting” he will follow the evidence. Cumbo v. State, 760 S.W.2d 251, 255-56 (Tex.Crim.App.1988).
I can not determine any meaningful difference between the two venirepersons. The judge was absolutely correct in allowing the challenge to the first and should have been consistent and allowed the second challenge. I believe there was an underlying reason the second venireperson was not excused. By the time the challenge was made to W.F., the court had already excused four venirepersons for cause, thereby making venireperson forty the thirty-sixth potential juror. Therefore, had W.F. been excused, the individual questioning would have to be reopened, at least to venireperson forty-one, and, depending upon her answers, then to the others.6 Clearly, the court was concerned with going past venireperson forty (potential juror thirty-six). This fact is the only discernable difference between Ms. C. and W.F. I continue to believe the trial court erred in denying the challenge for cause as to W.F.
The Proper Issue on Remand
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded the case for this court to conduct a harm analysis in light of Johnson, 43 S.W.3d at 1. The court in Johnson held “that Rule 44.2(b) does not change the way that harm is demonstrated for the erroneous denial of a challenge for cause.” Id. at 2. Harm is demonstrated “when the appellant (1) exercised his peremptory challenges on the venire member whom the trial court erroneously failed to excuse for cause, (2) exhausted his peremptory challenges, (3) was denied a request for additional peremptory challenges, and (4) identified an objectionable juror who sat on the case.” Id. at 5-6. The record reflects Carroll used a peremptory challenge to remove W.F., exhausted his peremptory challenges, the trial court denied Carroll’s request for additional peremptory challenges, and Carroll identified an objectionable juror who sat on the case. Accordingly, Carroll’s substantial rights were harmed by the trial court’s error and he should be entitled to a new trial.
I would sustain Carroll’s point of error, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial.
APPENDIX ONE
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
Timothy Earl CARROLL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas.
No. 1789-99.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
May 23, 2001.
On State’s Petition for Discretionary • Review from the Ninth Court . of Appeals, Polk County.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.
A jury convicted appellant of aggravated robbery and sentenced him to confinement for 40 years. See TexPen.Code ANN. § 29.03(a)(3)(A). On direct appeal, *421appellant raised one point of error — that the trial court erred when it overruled his challenge for cause of “potential juror William Fairbanks.” Appellant claimed that Fairbanks could not consider the minimum range of punishment. The court of appeals sustained this point of error, reversed appellant’s conviction and remanded the cause to the trial court. See Carroll v. State, 997 S.W.2d 399, 405 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1999). The court of appeals did not perform a harmless error analysis. The State petitioned this Court to review the court of appeals’ failure to conduct a harm analysis.
This Court recently decided that the erroneous denial of a defense challenge for cause is subject to harmless error analysis under Rule 44.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Johnson v. State, No. 1353-99 (Tex.Crim.App. March 28, 2001). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand this cause to the court of appeals for reconsideration in light of Johnson.

. Appendix One to this opinion.

. See Carroll, 997 S.W.2d at 405.

. The most efficient result of all possible options.

.The original case was heard by Chief Justice Ronald L. Walker, Justice Don Burgess and Justice Earl B. "Smokey” Stover. Justice David Gaultney replaced Justice Stover, January 1, 2001.

. Much of the discussion, if not all, of this issue is taken from the earlier majority opinion. Carroll v. State, 997 S.W.2d 399, 400 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1999).

. This is reflected in the judge’s comments as noted in the original majority opinion.