Court Opinion

ID: 9858253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:19:16.684976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:41.165378
License: Public Domain

OVERSTREET, Judge,
dissenting opinion on state’s motion for rehearing.
We granted review in this case to determine whether the trial judge abused his discretion in granting a mistrial based on manifest necessity; however, this issue cannot be addressed until an underlying issue in the case is examined and fully resolved. The underlying issue is whether there existed manifest necessity. In order to answer this question it must be determined whether the juror was disqualified and properly removed from the jury panel. The resolution of this question is pertinent to the issue at hand and thus must be addressed.
The record does not support a finding of juror bias or prejudice which would have warranted the disqualification and removal of the juror. In reviewing the record, it appears that the Court asked the juror questions which regarded the effect that the discovery of knowing the applicant’s father had upon him. The juror’s answer to the questions expressed such mixed feelings that it is impossible to ascertain with any certainty how he really felt, except he no longer wanted to be a juror. It is a juror’s duly to sit throughout the entire trial and maintain his objectivity until all the evidence has been presented by both sides. It is a duty inherent with our citizenship and should not be abandoned without sufficient cause. Since the duty requires that a juror remain fair and impartial until the presentation of all the evidence and testimony, any personal feelings of sympathy, bias, or prejudice are to be put aside. It is only when such a bias or prejudice is found to inhibit one’s ability to maintain his objectivity throughout the trial that it should become an issue as to his qualification to serve as a juror. If such a bias or prejudice is discovered which prohibits him from being fair and impartial, it is within the trial judge’s sound discretion to remove the juror if the judge is convinced that the juror’s abilities to perform his duties is impaired. United States v. Spiegel, 604 F.2d 961 (5th Cir.1979); United States v. Rodriguez, 573 F.2d 330 (5th Cir.1978).
The record reflects as follows:
*936THE COURT: Was there something you want to talk to us about?
THE JUROR: Yes, sir. I want to disqualify myself as a juror. I know the boy’s father from high school and grade school. I didn’t know it until lunch time when I was walking out. I ran into him.
THE COURT: Does that affect you?
THE JUROR: Sure does. I don’t want to feel guilty either way. Either way, as I see it, I will feel guilty.
THE COURT: Do you have any questions you want to ask him?
THE STATE: Did you talk to him about the case?
THE JUROR: No. We were talking about it, he asked me what I was doing, I asked him what he was doing here and he says his boy was in court and he said which one, that is what I asked him and he said the one you’re in.
THE STATE: So, you did talk?
THE JUROR: Yes. That’s it, but—
THE STATE: And you feel you will be biased one way or another?
THE JUROR: One way or not, not for guilty, but either way, I don’t want to be put into that position.
THE STATE: Pass the witness.
THE DEFENSE: I have no questions, Your Honor. (R.Vol. Ill, p. 323-324)
Defense counsel did not question the juror at that time, but stated that he would not object to excusing the juror and proceeding with eleven jurors. The State objected to proceeding with eleven jurors. As a result of the State’s objection to excusing the juror by agreement and continuing with eleven jurors, it became the burden of the State to prove that the juror should be disqualified from serving. The record, however, does not provide evidence that the State met its burden of proof. Instead the record only shows that the juror knew the defendant’s father and did not want to be in “that position.” It does not show unequivocally that the juror was biased in favor of or against the defendant. So the next question is what should have been done?
Art. 36.29 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allows for continuation of a trial with eleven jurors if a juror becomes sick or is disabled. The trial court correctly determined that the juror was not disabled under the article and that it did not apply. Since the legislature has not addressed the removal of a juror after the trial has began for anything other than disability, the determination of whether a bias or prejudice existed which would have prohibited the juror from being fair and impartial should have been handled more like a voir dire examination as stipulated under Article 35.16(a)(9) V.A.C.C.P. Article 35.16(a)(9) speaks to the disqualification of juror for bias or prejudice under challenges for cause. If a bias or prejudice is found during a voir dire examination, questions usually follow as to the extent of the bias. Then a determination is made as to whether the juror is capable of putting aside the bias and deciding the case on the evidence admitted and the Court’s instruction.
By analogy, something similar to this procedure should have been implored in this case. The extent of any bias or prejudice should have been fully examined to determine if it would hinder the juror from being fair and impartial to the defendant. This simply was not the case in this trial. It was not determined that he had a bias in favor of or against the defendant. It was not determined if such a bias existed that it could or could not be put aside in light of all the evidence and testimony from both sides. Nor was it determined that such a bias, if it existed, prohibited him from being fair and impartial.
It is this type of questioning which should have been followed before the Court proceeded to disqualify the juror. Upon careful review of the case, it appears that manifest necessity was created by the trial judge based on a premature determination that the juror was biased. Manifest necessity cannot *937be created by the court to the detriment of the defendant. The record shows that the trial judge did not thoroughly consider all available options and was somewhat hasty in finding the existence of manifest necessity and declaring a mistrial. Thus, it can be concluded that the trial court erred in finding that the juror was disqualified because the record indicates that neither the Court nor the State developed the basis for his disqualification. As a result the juror was not properly removed from the jury panel and there was no manifest necessity which warranted a mistrial.
Since the trial court erred in disqualifying the juror, it flows logically that the court erred in its’ declaration of a mistrial based on manifest necessity. The power to declare a mistrial “ought to be used with the greatest caution, under urgent circumstances, and for very plain and obvious causes.” United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579, 580, 6 L.Ed. 165. In this case there existed no heightened necessity to declare a mistrial because there were twelve qualified jurors on the panel since the juror had not been proven to be disqualified. As a result, the Court could have still proceeded with the initial twelve. This would have been one possible alternative and according to Torres v. State, the exercise of sound discretion normally requires the court to consider less drastic alternatives to a mistrial and to give adequate consideration to the defendant’s double jeopardy right before declaring a mistrial. Torres v. State, 614 S.W.2d 486, 442 (Tex.Crim.App.1981). In this case the court could have proceeded with the initial panel. Thus, there was a viable option available to the Court which was not adequately considered.
The issue of double jeopardy need not even be addressed since jeopardy attached when the jury was impaneled and sworn. Torres, supra. An exception to this rule does exist when the defendant consents to a retrial or a mistrial is mandated by some form of manifest necessity. Arizona v. Washington, 484 U.S. 497, 98 S.Ct. 824, 54 L.Ed.2d 717 (1978). It is apparent from the record that the defendant did not consent to be retried and even stipulated that he would prefer to continue with the initial panel or eleven jurors before consenting to a mistrial. Since it has been concluded that the heightened degree of necessity did not exist in the instant case, this exception to the manifest necessity rule does not apply. Thus, the appellant is barred from a retrial under the double jeopardy prohibition of the U.S. Constitution.
Because the majority refuses to so hold, I dissent.
BAIRD, J., joins.