Court Opinion

ID: 9653351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:44:42.569134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:58.077946
License: Public Domain

GREENHILL, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
The court’s opinion reverts to the doctrine of presumed harm and unassigned error. It states, toward the end, that the exercise of the strikes by the defendants “resulted in a trial that was materially unfair as a matter of law.”
This statement is made in spite of the fact that the plaintiff did not request the trial court to equalize the strikes or to direct the defendants not to collaborate on the exercise of their strikes.
Instead, the plaintiff’s position at trial was that all four defendants were entitled to a total of only six strikes. The trial court overruled this motion. As I understand this court’s opinion, it agrees with that ruling of the trial court. At trial, plaintiff made no other request or motion. It was all, or nothing at all. The plaintiff’s motion was not to limit the strikes by equalizing the defendants’ strikes, but was to limit all defendants to six strikes. That was and is his point. The court has, in my opinion, created a different point for him and sustained it.
Further, the court’s opinion presumes harm. In this case, there is no statement of facts before the court to show the existence of harm. In those similar cases previously before this court, there has been a statement of facts indicating the existence of harm. Perkins v. Freeman, 518 S.W.2d 532 (Tex.1974); Tamburello v. Welch, 392 S.W.2d 114 (Tex.1965). Moreover, this court “refused” the application for writ of error in Retail Credit Co. v. Hyman, 316 S.W.2d 769 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston 1958) and thus approved the holding and opinion that a judgment in such a case would not be reversed in the absence of a statement of facts. 316 S.W.2d at 772.