Court Opinion

ID: 9762749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:30:30.785249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:37.208095
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

KELLER, Judge.
Appellant was indicted for the offense of possession of cocaine weighing less than twenty-eight grams. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Holding that the prosecutor asked questions that attempted to improperly commit members of the venire to the specific facts of the case, we reversed the conviction and remanded the case to the trial court. Atkins v. State, 951 S.W.2d 787 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). In the second ground of its *797motion for rehearing, the State contends that this cause should be remanded to the Court of Appeals for a harm analysis. We agree. In Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262 (Tex.Crim.App.1997), we held that all errors, except certain federal constitutional errors deemed “structural,” are subject to a harm analysis. Id. at 264. Moreover, similar voir dire errors have traditionally been subject to a harm analysis. Clark v. State, 881 S.W.2d 682, 692 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1156, 115 S.Ct. 1114, 130 L.Ed.2d 1078 (1995).
We grant the State’s second ground for rehearing and remand this cause to the Court of Appeals to conduct a harmless error analysis. All other grounds for rehearing are denied.
OVERSTREET, J., dissents.