Court Opinion

ID: 9778704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:16:43.923123+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:12.722720
License: Public Domain

BAIRD, Judge,
concurring.
I cannot join that portion of the majority opinion addressing of appellant’s seventh point of error. Majority op. at 835. Appellant contends the trial judge erred in denying his request of veniremember Sorrell to explain what “deliberately” meant to her. The majority states:
... The rationale for this prohibition is not that these questions are improper but rather that if counsel were to be permitted to inquire into the definition of every term during trial, voir dire would be endless.
Majority op. at 835. (Citations omitted and emphasis added.).
In support of this statement the majority relies on Woolridge v. State, 827 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). However, Woolridge does not support the majority’s position. In Woolridge, we addressed the issue of whether the trial judge had abused his discretion in refusing to permit the defendant to question the venire on the meaning of reasonable doubt. Id., 827 S.W.2d at 904. In Woolridge the State argued that to allow questioning of the each prospective juror of undefined terms would unnecessarily prolong the voir dire process. Id., 827 S.W.2d at 905. And that is the position now taken by the majority. However, we expressly rejected that argument in Woolridge.
We recognize that any proper question has the potential to lengthen the voir dire portion of the trial. However, it is improper for a trial judge to impose restrictions based on the mere possibility that the otherwise proper question might lengthen then process. The trial judge must first allow the question, and may later curtail similar questions if the voir dire process proves to be unduly lengthy. See Battie, 551 S.W.2d at 403. Also, trial judges may prohibit an otherwise proper question *844which substantially repeats others posed by the same party, Allridge v. State, 762 S.W.2d 146, 167 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), or when the prospective juror has stated his position clearly, unequivocally, and without reservation. Phillips v. State, 701 S.W.2d 875, 889 (Tex.Cr.App.1985).
Additionally, the fact that no definition will be provided for a term does not render a prospective juror’s understanding of that term irrelevant. To the contrary, that understanding becomes more crucial to the intelligent exercise of either the State’s or the defendant’s peremptory challenges because there is no definition to guide what could be a juror’s skewed perception of the term.
Id., 827 S.W.2d at 905-906.
In the instant case, the State does not argue that the objections should have been sustained. Indeed, the State seems to acknowledge that the trial judge erred in not permitting the questions but the State argues the error was harmless because Sorrell subsequently answered the questions posed by appellant and stated what deliberate meant to her:
The terms [intentionally and deliberately] are so close. Intent meaning that you realize what’s going to happen, that I don’t know if the difference is in the malice involved or the amount of forethought in planning. That’s the only thing that I can see is the difference between intent and deliberate.
In the instant case, as in Woolridge, I would hold the inquiry of Sorrell was proper because it sought to discover her views on an issue applicable to appellant’s trial, was not repetitious, and was not in an improper form. However, since Sorrell eventually answered the question, appellant was not denied of his light to intelligently exercise his peremptory challenges.
With these comments, I concur only in the disposition of the seventh point of error and join the remainder of the opinion.