Court Opinion

ID: 9676417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:24:04.19765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:48.536114
License: Public Domain

*192OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
W.C. DAVIS, Judge.
On original submission applicant’s conviction for capital murder was affirmed. Bravo v. State, 627 S.W.2d 152 (Tex.Cr.App.1982). Subsequently, we reversed the conviction in an opinion granting relief upon application for writ of habeas corpus because a venireperson was prematurely and improperly excused by the trial court. In a motion for rehearing, the State argues that applicant’s trial objection to the exclusion of the venireperson was not sufficient to preserve error; and, even if the objection was sufficient, because applicant did not raise the contention on direct appeal he cannot now raise it by writ of habeas corpus. i
In our first opinion granting relief on applicant’s writ of habeas corpus we held that the record of the voir dire examination of venireperson Madrigal reflects that she was improperly excused. By this showing in the record applicant has met his burden to show that her exclusion was improper. We stand by our original decision.
Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980) clarified Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968) and discussed its application to the Texas capital murder scheme. Adams held that “a juror may not be challenged for cause based on his views about capital punishment unless those views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” Adams, 448 U.S. at 45, 100 S.Ct. at 2526. This standard is a limitation on the State’s power to exclude. If venire-persons are excluded on “ ‘any broader basis’ than inability to follow the law or abide by their oaths, the death sentence cannot be carried out. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. at 522, n. 21, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776, 46 Ohio Ops2d 368.” Adams, 448 U.S. at 48, 100 S.Ct. at 2528.
Madrigal initially told the court that she did not think that knowledge of the potential penalty of death would “affect” her verdict or “influence” her.1 Then she stated that she could not say whether she would be affected or not, and finally she said that although she “could vote with the other people and decide on the guilt or the innocence of anyone,” she still could not answer whether she would be “affected.” The court excused Madrigal and applicant’s attorney said, “Note our exception to that ruling, please.” The record of the voir dire examination reveals that the questioning simply did not go far enough to show that Madrigal was disqualified for cause under Adams, supra, or under Wainwright v. Witt, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985); Cf. Hovila v. State, 532 S.W.2d 293 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). The State did not satisfy its burden, as the party seeking exclusion must, to show that Madrigal was properly excludable under Witherspoon.
The record shows that the State did not demonstrate, through questioning, that Madrigal would be unable to faithfully and impartially apply the law. Witt, 105 S.Ct. at 853. Even if Madrigal had said she would be “affected” by the potential imposition of the death penalty, she would not have been subject to exclusion under Adams, 448 U.S. at 49-50, 100 S.Ct. at 2528. Mardrigal was excluded on a “broader basis” than is permissible under Adams. She was prematurely and improperly excused in violation of the Adams-Witt rationale.
We turn now to the State’s contention that this error in excluding Madrigal was not preserved at trial. The voir dire took place in January and February of 1977, over three years before the June 1980 decision in Adams. Adams applied Wither-spoon to the Texas capital murder scheme and established the standard and limit under which challenges for cause can be sustained due to the “affect” of the death penalty on a venireperson’s deliberation on any issue of fact. See V.T.C.A. Penal *193Code, Section 12.31(b). Prior to the decision in Adams, venirepersons were excluded on a much broader basis under the Texas capital murder scheme. Adams restricted this broad exclusion under 12.31(b). Applicant objected to Madrigal’s exclusion after discussion about the effect of the death penalty on her deliberation. Since Adams had not yet been decided, applicant had no reason to object more strenuously than he did. Cf. Hartfield v. State, 645 S.W.2d 436 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Cuevas v. State, 641 S.W.2d 558 (Tex.Cr.App.1982).2
In addition, the only issue discussed during the voir dire examination of Madrigal was the effect on her consideration of applicant’s guilt or innocence of the knowledge that the potential for the death penalty existed. No other topic was mentioned during the short voir dire examination. There is no suggestion in the record that the parties did not know the basis and nature of applicant’s objection. In this situation, like that in Hartfield, supra, and Roeder v. State, 688 S.W.2d 856 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), applicant’s “exception” to the court’s ruling preserved error.
We now address the State’s contention that failure to raise this issue on direct appeal bars applicant from raising it by writ of habeas corpus. As previously discussed, applicant correctly contends that the exclusion of Madrigal, even if she said that her deliberations would be “affected” by the potential for the death penalty under the language of 12.31(b), was not permissible under the constitutional dictates of Witherspoon. And, as we pointed out previously, the applicability of Witherspoon to the language of 12.31(b) was not explained until Adams, which was decided after the date of applicant’s trial and after the case was submitted to this Court on appeal. It is well established that habeas corpus will lie only to review jurisdictional defect or denials of fundamental or constitutional rights. Ex Parte Watson, 601 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Cr.App.1980) and cases cited therein. Exclusion of venirepersons in violation of Adams and Witherspoon violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and a death sentence so imposed cannot be carried out. Witherspoon, 391 U.S. at 518, 522, 88 S.Ct. at 1775, 1777. Applicant preserved his objection to the exclusion of Madrigal and may bring his claim of constitutional violation by writ of habeas corpus. See Cuevas, supra; Ex Parte Chambers, 612 S.W.2d 572 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Ex Parte Martin, 479 S.W.2d 280 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). Applicant may raise his contentions concerning the constitutionality of 12.31(b) as it applied to the exclusion of Madrigal because he did not have the opportunity to have his constitutional issue reviewed in light of the decision in Adams, since Adams had not been decided.3
The State’s motion for rehearing is denied.
ONION, P.J., concurs in result.
McCORMICK, J., not participating.

. Even if Madrigal had stated that she would be “affected” or "influenced”, the State could not properly exclude her under the decision in Adams, 448 U.S. at 49-50, 100 S.Ct. at 2528.

. See Ex Parte Chambers, 688 S.W.2d 483 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 181, 88 L.Ed.2d 150 (1985).

. We note that the instant case does not implicate Crawford v. State, 617 S.W.2d 925 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) because we hold that applicant preserved error at the trial level.