Court Opinion

ID: 9681830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:57:19.603767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:36.110724
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
ONION, Presiding Judge.
On original submission the majority held, among other things, that the appellant had failed to claim that some action occurred during voir dire examination of the jury panel which he was unable to bring forward in the appellate record because of the refusal of the trial court to order the court reporter to take the voir dire examination. Cases which emanated from Morris v. State, 411 S.W.2d 730 (Tex.Cr.App.1967), were cited in support of the holding. A dissenting opinion in which two judges joined was filed.
Although appellant’s court-appointed trial counsel did not allege in the motion for new trial or otherwise that the appellant was harmed in any way by the trial court’s action, appellant’s court-appointed counsel on appeal, finding the court’s refusal to have the voir dire examination recorded in the record, vigorously urges on rehearing a reconsideration of the holding in Morris v. State, supra, contending this court should adopt a presumed prejudicial error interpretation to be given to Article *57140.09 § 4, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., which reads, in part, as follows:
“At the request of either party the court reporter shall take shorthand notes of all trial proceedings, including voir dire examination . . . .”
The motion for rehearing has provoked another dissenting opinion by one of the original dissenters, and it may be well to re-examine the proposition urged.
Morris v. State, supra, was the first case to interpret Article 40.09 § 4, supra, with regard to a refusal of a trial court for the court reporter to take the voir dire examination after the statute was enacted in 1965.
It is clear from reading the statute in question that it does not come into play in absence of a request. Failure to request the court reporter to take the voir dire examination of the jury panel constitutes a waiver and there is no basis for reversal. Taylor v. State, 489 S.W.2d 890 (Tex.Cr. App.1973); Jackson v. State, 491 S.W.2d 155 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Garrett v. State, 434 S.W.2d 142 (Tex.Cr.App.1968), cert. denied 394 U.S. 949, 89 S.Ct. 1287, 22 L.Ed.2d 484; Wright v. State, 437 S.W.2d 566 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). Cf. Gasery v. State, 465 S.W.2d 377 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). And, under such circumstances, there is no denial of due process or fair trial. Reyna v. State, 434 S.W.2d 362 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Palka v. State, 435 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). See also State v. Moore, 108 Ariz. 532, 502 P.2d 1351 (1972); Graham v. State, 13 Md.App. 171, 282 A.2d 162 (1971).
As Judge Odom so clearly pointed out in Taylor v. State, supra,
“. . . The record reflects no request by appellant to have the court reporter transcribe the voir dire or the jury argument, as permitted by Article 40.09, Section 4, V.A.C.C.P. Said Article is not mandatory but rather provides that ‘at the request of either party’ the court reporter shall take short-hand notes of all trial proceedings. . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) 489 S.W.2d at 892.
Those who have failed to make the necessary request must then rely upon formal bills of exception, an agreed statement of facts, or other permissible methods of bringing forward any claimed errors occurring during the voir dire examination.
In Morris v. State, supra, there was a timely request, and a refusal by the trial court, and this court was confronted with the question of whether such refusal constituted reversible error per se where there was no showing that, as a result of the trial court’s action, the accused was deprived of any informal bills of exception reserved during voir dire examination nor any claim, contention, or suggestion made that anything occurred during the voir dire examination to the detriment of the accused.
In holding that there was error but no reversible error in absence of an assertion of a specific ground of prejudice, the court relied, in part, upon Strauss v. United States, 311 F.2d 926 (1963), where the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said:
“. . . Furthermore, no specific error or prejudice resulting therefrom is called to our attention. This is the very least that would be required under Stephens v. United States, 5 Cir., 1961, 289 F.2d 308, where errors were specified, and where there was no record on which to test the claimed errors. To permit an appellant simply to claim error for failure to record under the Act, without more, would eliminate the necessity of a showing of prejudice because of the error. The error may well have been harmless when considered in the light of the facts which were reported. . . .” 311 F.2d at 933.
Other federal cases were cited and Moore v. State, 363 S.W.2d 477 (Tex.Cr.App.1963), which involved Article 2324, *572Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St., was clearly distinguished.
In Morris, this court made clear that the trial court had erred and its action was not to be commended but refused to reverse an otherwise valid conviction in the absence of any specific assertion of prejudice.
McClain v. State, 432 S.W.2d 73 (Tex.Cr.App.1968), followed the Morris decision, saying,
“. . . [tjhere is no showing that any objection was made during the voir dire of the jury or that anything occurred during that time which was prejudicial to the appellant. No reversible error is presented. . . .”
Miller v. State, 472 S.W.2d 269 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), an opinion by Judge Roberts, was also like Morris in that there was
“. . . no showing that appellant, as a result of the trial court’s order, (sic) was deprived of any informal bills of exception reserved during voir dire examination nor is there any suggestion that anything occurred on voir dire to the detriment of appellant.” 472 S.W.2d at 273.
In Young v. State, 488 S.W.2d 92 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), the appellant, in a supplemental brief filed only in this court, raised the question of the trial court’s refusal to require the court reporter to record all of the voir dire examination. Noting that the ground of error had not been raised in the trial court as required by Article 40.09 § 9, this court refused to review the same as unassigned error “in the interest of justice.” See Article 40.09 § 13, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. Obviously this court unanimously, as late as December 20, 1972, did not consider the error of the trial court in refusing to order voir dire examination taken to be presumed prejudicial error.
This court, however, has never hesitated to reverse where there was a specific assertion of prejudice supported by the record.
In Williams v. State, 418 S.W.2d 837 (Tex.Cr.App.1967), decided shortly after Morris, this court reversed where the trial court refused the request to have the court reporter to take the voir dire examination where the defense counsel twice during the voir dire examination filed “memorandums” or “bystander bills” vehemently pointing out that they were .being deprived of valuable testimony to show one prospective juror disqualified and to show another prospective juror may have given the jury panel information about the case which might have disqualified each of them. These written “memorandums” were supported by testimony offered at the hearing on the motion for new trial.
In Evans v. State, 430 S.W.2d 502 (Tex.Cr.App.1968), the defense also proved up their claim of prejudicial error at the hearing on the motion for new trial and this court reversed for the refusal of the trial court to order the court reporter to take the voir dire examination.
And, in Vines v. State, 479 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), this court again reversed where the court refused to have the court reporter record all the voir dire examination but only those matters in controversy. The possible prejudicial error there was reflected in what had been recorded and brought forward with the court noting that a formal bill of exception was unnecessary to the assertion of the right to a re-cordation of the voir dire examination under Article 40.09, supra.
In support of his contention, appellant cites and relies upon Kenton v. State, 369 P.2d 474 (Okl.Cr.1963), and Thomson v. State, 389 P.2d 526 (Okl.Cr.1964), construing an Oklahoma statute (20 O.S.1961 § 108).
The statute involved provided, in part:
A refusal of the court to permit, or, when requested, to require any statement to be taken down by the official court reporter, or transcribe after being taken down, upon the same being *573shown by affidavit or other direct and competent evidence, to the Supreme Court, shall be deemed prejudicial error, without regard to the merits thereof.” (Emphasis supplied.) 369 P.2d at 475.
Both cases were reversed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
In Spicer v. State, 490 P.2d 1113 (Okl.Cr.1971), the court reversed for the refusal of the trial court to order the voir dire examination taken. The statute involved was 20 O.S.Supp.1968 § 106.4(a), which provided that the refusal of the court to permit recording- “shall constitute a denial of due process of law . . . (Emphasis supplied.)
It is to be observed that our Article 40.-09, supra, has no such provision as the Oklahoma statutes cited relating to presumed prejudicial error or denial of due process, but the dissenters would obviously write such interpretation into our statute.
Moore v. State, 363 S.W.2d 477 (Tex.Cr.App.1963), cited with approval by the dissenting opinion on appellant’s motion for rehearing, was clearly distinguished in Morris v. State, supra. As earlier noted, Moore involved a construction of Article 2324, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St., and related to a request for recording of jury arguments and there the defendant by bill of exception and bystander’s bill asserted a specific ground of prejudice. All of the earlier cases cited in the dissenting opinion on appellant’s motion for rehearing did not involve a construction of Article 40.09, supra, but other statutes.
Since the decision in Morris, literally thousands of cases have passed through this court on appeal and there have only been seven other cases, including the instant one, where it has been brought to our attention that there was a request for a court reporter to take the voir dire examination and a refusal by the trial court. Three of these cases have been reversed on appeal.
It is interesting to note that of the eight cases involved six of the cases (Morris, McClain, Miller, Vines, Young, and the instant one) all came from Dallas County and the other two cases (Williams and Evans) originated in Tarrant County.
It should be clear from the foregoing that there is no widespread failure of trial courts to comply with the statute or that the interpretation given the statute in Morris has resulted in trial judges refusing to comply with the statute “six years later” as the dissent urges.
Further, it should be observed that the Legislature has convened in three regular sessions since the decision in Morris without indicating their disapproval by amendment to the statute.
“When a statute has been construed, especially by a court of final resort, the fact that the legislature permits it to stand through one or more subsequent sessions, without amendment, may be regarded as legislative sanction of that construction. . . .” 53 Tex.Jur.2d Statutes § 127, p. 190.
The dissenters urged a presumed prejudicial error approach to the statutory interpretation so that an otherwise errorless trial would be reversed because of the refusal of the defendant’s request for a court reporter to take the voir dire examination without any claim of any harm or injury. The same would be true where federal constitutional errors during trial are held harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969), and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), but reversal would still be called for by virtue of a presumed prejudicial error for violation of the statute.
Such an approach reminds one of the old saying: “The cure is worse than the disease.”
*574We remain convinced of the soundness of the Morris decision and adhere thereto.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.