Court Opinion

ID: 9666417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:14:15.150507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:28.443424
License: Public Domain

MAJORITY OPINION
JUNELL, Justice.
A jury convicted appellant of the offenses of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (Cause No. 19,086-272) and theft (Cause No. 19,087-272) and the trial court assessed punishment at ten years in each cause, sentences to run concurrently, in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant brings two points of error alleging: (1) the trial court erred in allowing the jury to submit written questions which were propounded to the witnesses, allowing the jurors to become advocates rather than impartial finders of fact; and (2) insufficient evidence to support the conviction. We affirm.
In his first point of error appellant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to formulate questions which the judge propounded to the specific witness. Appellant asserts that such a practice allows the jurors to become advocates rather than finders of fact. We disagree.
In this instance, the trial court, after a witness had been questioned by the prosecution and defense attorneys, asked the jurors if they had any questions to ask the witnesses. The trial judge had the jurors write down their questions on paper. The jury then retired to the jury room. Outside the jury’s presence, the trial judge read the questions and allowed the attorneys to pose any objections, e.g. hearsay, relevancy, etc. The only objection made was made by appellant’s trial counsel: he objected to the entire process. This objection was overruled. The jury then returned to the courtroom where the judge asked the witness the question(s) tendered. When the trial judge completed the questions, he allowed the attorneys to ask follow-up questions before the witness was excused.
The issue of jurors questioning witnesses appears to be a rather unexplored one in Texas. However, the case law of other states is replete with information concerning the issue. See, e.g., State v. Lemaster, 137 Ariz. 159, 669 P.2d 592, 598 (App.1983); Nelson v. State, 257 Ark. 1, 513 S.W.2d 496, 498 (1974); Ferrara v. State, 101 So.2d 797, 801 (Fla.1958); Sparks v. Daniel, 343 S.W.2d 661, 667 (Mo.App.1961); People v. Knapper, 230 A.D. 487, 245 N.Y.S. 245, 251 (1930); State v. Kendall, 143 N.C. 659, 57 S.E. 340, 341 (1907); Byrge v. State, 575 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tenn.Crim.App.1978); State v. Johnson, 784 P.2d 1135, 1144-1145 (Utah 1989). These states hold the general rule is that it is within the discretion of the trial court whether to allow jurors to ask questions of witnesses. Such a rule is consistent with the rules in Texas governing the mode and order of interrogation of witnesses and presentation of evidence.
Tex.R.CRIM.Evid. 610(a) states, in pertinent part:
The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth.
Thus, in Texas, the trial court has the task of controlling the mode of questioning witnesses. Nowhere in the rules is it stated that the jury is forbidden to ask questions of the witnesses. In fact, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, when presented with the question nearly twenty years ago, did not denounce the idea when given the opportunity. Carr v. State, 475 S.W.2d 755, 757 (Tex.Crim.App.1972). Though the Court of Criminal Appeals in Carr stated that appellant had presented a multifarious ground of error and presented nothing for review, the court went on and discussed the fact that a juror or jurors had been permitted to ask questions of a witness. Id. Carr, acting pro se, failed to object to the procedure and the court stated that it was impossible to see how the defendant was harmed. Id. The court could have condemned the entire procedure regarding jurors questioning witnesses. It chose not to do so. We find this telling.
*646While here, appellant’s counsel did object, it is still impossible to find that the procedure harmed the appellant in any way. He seems to argue that the jury asked questions which helped the prosecution build its case. Is he then arguing that if the jury asked questions which seemed to harm the state’s case or help his there would be no problem? The questions asked in this case were not especially dangerous or helpful to either side. Considering the procedural safeguards provided by the trial court in the manner of the questioning we fail to see any abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.
As stated by the Fifth Circuit:
There is nothing improper about the practice of allowing occasional questions from jurors to be asked of witnesses. If a juror is unclear as to a point in the proof, it makes good common sense to allow a question to be asked about it. If nothing else, the question should alert trial counsel that a particular factual issue may need more extensive development. Trials exist to develop the truth.
United States v. Callahan, 588 F.2d 1078, 1086 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 826, 100 S.Ct. 49, 62 L.Ed.2d 33 (1979). The reasoning of the Fifth Circuit is sound. The days of trial by ambush are long past. In this case, appellant was afforded great procedural protection in the manner in which the questioning was conducted. The trial court required the jurors to write down the questions and then retired them to the jury room to give the attorneys the opportunity to object to the questions. Only then did the trial court return the jury and ask the questions propounded by the jurors. The court also permitted each attorney to ask questions of each witness after the jurors’ questions were asked. The questioning was not overly extensive and did not consume an inordinate amount of time. With these procedural protections, there was no harm and no reversible error. Appellant’s first point of error is overruled.
In his second point of error the appellant alleges that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. Specifically, appellant contends that the evidence failed to show that his use of the motor vehicle in question was without the effective consent of the owner.
Appellant was charged under Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 1.07(a)(9) and § 31.07 which provides: “a person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly operates another’s motor-propelled vehicle without the effective consent of the owner.” “Effective consent” is defined as assent in fact, whether express or apparent, and includes consent by a person legally authorized to act for the owner. Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(4). Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove lack of effective consent in that the only testimony on lack of consent came from Eula Mae Bassett, the mother of the owner of the stolen motor vehicle, a Honda motorcycle.
In reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788-2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Butler v. State, 769 S.W.2d 234, 239 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) (reconfirming the Jackson standard of review).
Mrs. Bassett testified that her son, Wayne Bassett, was the owner of the motorcycle in question. She stated that her son works in Houston and that he kept his motorcycle at her house in Bryan, Texas. Mrs. Bassett noticed that the motorcycle was missing from the place where it was kept and called her son to tell him. The testimony showed that the motorcycle was reported stolen by the owner, Mr. Wayne Bassett. Mrs. Bassett testified that while she knew the appellant, she had never given him permission to take the motorcycle, nor had her son made her aware that he had given the appellant such permission.
The prosecution also called Officer Dan Jones. Officer Jones was working undercover in July 1989 in a sting operation to purchase stolen property in order to identify those stealing the property, and the *647subsequent disposition of the stolen property. Officer Jones testified that during the operation, which was videotaped, the appellant and another man entered the “shop” and offered to sell Officer Jones a motorcycle. The motorcycle, a Honda, was brought to the “shop” by the appellant approximately thirty minutes later and had no ignition key. The officer testified that there were loose wires around the ignition. The other man with the appellant told Officer Jones when the motorcycle had been taken: the same day that Mr. Bassett’s motorcycle disappeared.
Finally, the vehicle identification number (VIN) of the Honda motorcycle sold to Officer Jones matched the VIN of the Honda motorcycle owned by and taken from Wayne Basset.1
Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant had taken the motorcycle belonging to Wayne Bassett without effective consent from Mr. Bassett or his mother. Appellant’s second point of error is overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

. The testimony concerning the VINs actually showed that the two numbers differed by one digit. However, the difference was explained as a typographical error made by a secretary.