Court Opinion

ID: 9769840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:03:37.53396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:08.493469
License: Public Domain

RONALD L. WALKER, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent because I feel that the majority goes much too far afield in finding abuse of discretion by the trial court during jury selection. Initially, I must emphasize that the lone appellate issue presented to this Court by appellant reads, “The trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s challenge for cause of potential juror [W.F.] because Mr. [F] stated that he could not consider the minimum authorized punishment.”. After recognizing the correct authority for reviewing decisions by the trial court with regard to challenges for cause based upon bias as to the facts or the law,1 the majority then begins a comparison of the responses given by venireperson W.F. with those given by another venireperson, R.C. Unfortunately, this comparative analysis of responses is no part of the law the majority explicitly recognized as controlling on this issue. I liken the majority’s approach to a “disparate treatment” analysis raised by parties complaining of Batson2 error. See Pondexter v. State, 942 S.W.2d 577, 581-82 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), cert. denied,—U.S.—, 118 S.Ct. 85, 139 L.Ed.2d 42 (1997); Lewis v. State, 775 S.W.2d 13, 15-17 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, pet. refd). I have been unable to locate any authority for applying a disparate treatment analysis to a non-Batson challenge for cause issue.
*406The departure from established precedent does not end there for the majority, however. Even if I were to accept a “comparative analysis”/“disparate treatment” approach to this appellate issue, the responses of W.F. and those of R.C. are clearly distinguishable in their respective abilities to be open to the full range of punishment for the offense as defined by law. See Sadler v. State, 977 S.W.2d 140, 143 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). R.C., who the trial court discharged for cause upon appellant’s request, although rehabilitated, clearly had a problem with the possibility that if she did not assess a long enough prison term the appellant, “knowing what I know about the prison system that they sometimes can be let go just because of overcrowding, that’s where I have a problem with it.” This attitude was maintained virtually throughout the entirety of the questioning up at the bench.
On the other hand, the record reflects that W.F. initially had a problem with assessing a “minimum” 25 year sentence to “a two-time loser.” With the State’s first hypothetical question to W.F., it is clear that W.F. picked up the ball, so to speak, and admitted that under certain highly mitigating circumstances he (W.F.), “could see where I could— I could at least entertain the thought of 25 years.” As the majority recognizes as the controlling law: “If the prospective juror is not disqualified as a matter of law, and states that he can set aside his bias against the law that governs the punishment for a particular crime, then the trial court’s refusal to sustain the defendant’s challenge for cause will be reviewed in light of all of the answers the prospective juror gives.” (emphases mine) Faulder, 745 S.W.2d at 339-40. In the light of all of W.F.’s answers, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing appellant’s request to strike W.F. for cause. And although not before us as I read appellant’s brief, I believe the trial court was correct in dismissing R.C. for cause in light of all of her answers.
Finally, I am troubled with the concluding portion of the majority’s opinion dealing with an alleged “underlying reason the second venireperson was not excused.” There is absolutely nothing in appellant’s brief that even hints of an “underlying reason” for the trial court’s refusal to excuse W.F. Nevertheless, without case, statutory, or constitutional authority, the majority delves into an area admittedly “not explicit in the record.” As rationale for this excursion, the majority opines that because of an apparent time-saving, voir dire directive by the trial court, “had W.F. been excused, the individual questioning would have to be reopened[.]” The majority then concludes that “[t]his fact is the only discernable difference between [R.C.] and [W.F.].” This type of speculation seems, to me, purposeless since reviewing courts are to uphold correct rulings of the trial court even if the trial court’s reasons were incorrect. See Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 389 (Tex.Crim.App.1998), cert. filed, 67 USLW 3758 (March 8, 1999). In the instant case, the trial court made a correct ruling on appellant’s challenge of W.F. for cause. Because the majority does not so hold, I must dissent.

. See Green v. State, 840 S.W.2d 394, 405 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), overruled on other grounds by Trevino v. State, 991 S.W.2d 849, 852 (Tex.Crim.App.1999); and Faulder v. State, 745 S.W.2d 327, 339-40 (Tex.Crim.App.1987).

. See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).