Court Opinion

ID: 9858588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:32:14.483725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:59.625904
License: Public Domain

BAIRD, Judge,
concurring.
Almost four years ago, the Court of Appeals lamented that neither this Court nor the Supreme Court had ruled on the propriety of juror note-taking. Hubbard v. State, 809 S.W.2d 316, 320 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1991).1 We granted review to answer two questions: 1) should jurors be permitted to
take notes; and, if so, 2) should jurors be permitted to use those notes during deliberations. We affirmatively answered these questions in Price v. State, 887 S.W.2d 949, 954 (Tex.Cr.App.1994), where we held juror note-taking is within the trial judge’s discretion. See also, Johnson v. State, 887 S.W.2d 957 (Tex.Cr.App.1994). However, that discretion is abused when certain cautionary steps are not followed. Price, 887 S.W.2d at 954; and, Johnson, 887 S.W.2d at 959-960 (Baird, J., concurring).
In the instant ease, the Court of Appeals conceded the trial judge did not follow the “better practice” of explaining the proper manner of taking notes and the use of those notes during deliberations. Hubbard, 809 S.W.2d at 321. However, in an alternative holding, the Court of Appeals held that if the notetaking was error, the error was harmless under Tex.RApp. P. 81(b)(2). Ibid.
Because the trial judge did not follow any of the cautionary steps announced in Price, he abused his discretion and the juror note-taking was error. Because the plurality does not find error, I cannot join that opinion. However, because appellant does not contend the error was not subject to a harm analysis, see, Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.Cr.App.1993), or that the Court of Appeals erred in holding the error harmless, I concur in the judgment of the Court.

. This issue was presented once before but we declined to reach the merits. In Hollins v. State, 571 S.W.2d 873 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), the defendant contended the trial judge erred in fading to grant a mistrial after discovering three jurors had taken notes during a portion of the trial. Id., 571 S.W.2d at 878. After considering several opinions from foreign jurisdictions the Court stated:
After due consideration of the facts in the instant case, we cannot conclude that this is the proper vehicle to lay down a hard and fast rule in criminal cases as to the propriety of jury note-taking and subsequent use in deliberations.
Id., 571 S.W.2d at 883. The Hollins Court concluded that, assuming note-taking was improper, there was no harm. Id.