Gonzalez v. State
| Decision Date | 10 February 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 31325,31325 |
| Citation | 331 S.W.2d 748,169 Tex.Crim. 49 |
| Parties | Manuel Sanchez GONZALEZ, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Johnson, Hester, Jenkins & Toscano, Harlingen, by Abel Toscano, Jr., Harlingen, of counsel, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is a conviction for driving while intoxicated, with punishment assessed at sixty days in jail and a fine of $200.
In view of our disposition of the case a recitation of the facts is unnecessary.
The conclusion is reached that reversible error is reflected in the trial court's action in refusing to sustain appellant's challenge for cause to venireman Bradbury.
The voir dire examination of the venireman reflected that he was so opposed to the drinking of intoxicants and to those who drank such intoxicating liquors as to constitute a bias and prejudice that would render the venireman unqualified for jury service in this case.
Art. 616, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., enumerates the reasons for challenge for cause of a particular juror and, in the twelfth subdivision, provides, as one of the reasons, 'That he has a bias or prejudice in favor of or against the defendant.'
It has been the holding of this court that there is a fundamental distinction between prejudice on the part of a juror for which he is disqualified under subdivision 12 of Art. 616, supra, and the entertaining of an opinion for which he may be disqualified under subdivision 13 of the article. While a trial court may hold a juror qualified who states that he can lay aside any opinion which he may have formed, no such discretion vests in the court with reference to a juror with bias or prejudice toward an accused.
In stating the rule in Hooper v. State, 100 Tex.Cr.R. 147, 272 S.W. 493, 495, this court said:
'When it appears that the feeling had by the proposed juror is really one of prejudice, and that it is directed toward the accused, it is not ordinarily deemed possible for such a juror to be qualified by stating that he can lay aside such prejudice.'
Under the facts shown in the bill of exception, appellant's challenge to the prospective juror should have been sustained by the trial court. The court's certification that appellant exhausted his peremptory challenges and was forced to accept an objectionable juror shows injury to the appellant. For such erroneous ruling a reversal of the conviction is called for. Hooper v. State, supr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brandon v. State
...juror should be excused for cause as a matter of law. Williams v. State, 565 S.W.2d 63 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978); Gonzalez v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 49, 331 S.W.2d 748 (1960); State v. Burke, 434 S.W.2d 240 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco, n. w. h. 1968). The error here was well preserved in the manner required ......
-
Kemp v. State
...trial judge may hold a juror qualified who states that he can lay aside any opinion which he may have formed. Gonzalez v. State, 169 Tex.Crim. 49, 331 S.W.2d 748, 749 (App.1960); see also, Williams v. State, 565 S.W.2d at 65. In the instant case, the venireperson did not testify to having a......
-
United States v. Robinson
...81 S.Ct. 645, 5 L.Ed.2d 574 (1961); the use of intoxicants, State v. Miller, 60 Idaho 79, 88 P.2d 526 (1939); see Gonzales v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 49, 331 S.W.2d 748 (1960); one who intends to testify that he had lied to another, United States v. Napoleone, 349 F.2d 350 (3d Cir. 1965); a me......
-
Johnson v. State
...565 S.W.2d 63, 65 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Hernandez v. State, 563 S.W.2d 947, 948-50 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Gonzalez v. State, 331 S.W.2d 748, 749 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960); Salazar v. State, 193 S.W.2d 211, 212-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1946) (op. on original submission and The dissent asserts tha......