Campbell v. State
| Decision Date | 16 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 186-84,186-84 |
| Parties | Robert Ellis CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Randolph S. Worsham, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty. and Gilbert Howard, Jane Jackson and Royce West, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appellant pled guilty before a jury to aggravated sexual abuse of a child. After finding appellant guilty, the jury assessed punishment at life imprisonment and a $10,000.00 fine. The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. Campbell v. State, 667 S.W.2d 221 (Tex.App.1983). The Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by sustaining the State's objections to defense counsel's voir dire questions about theories of punishment. We granted the State's petition for discretionary review to examine that holding.
We quote that portion of the voir dire which gave rise to the issue before the Court of Appeals:
Relying on Powell v. State, 631 S.W.2d 169 (Tex.Cr.App.1982), the Court of Appeals held "that the trial court erred because the appellant's inquiry into the juror's theory of punishment was a proper subject for voir dire and the trial court's refusal to permit inquiry in this area denied the appellant the ability to intelligently exercise his peremptory strikes."
The State seeks to distinguish Powell from the instant case on the ground that counsel in Powell asked about three theories of punishment--deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution--but that, in the instant case, appellant's counsel asked about rehabilitation and retribution only. The State argues that "Appellant misstated the recognized, statutory, adjudicated theories of punishment, in that he stated same as being only two, whereas there are basically three." The State cites the Penal Code, Sec. 1.02 for its mention of deterrence, and urges that, by omitting deterrence as a third theory of punishment, appellant's counsel misstated the law. For this reason, the State concludes, counsel's questions were improper, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining objections to the questions.
The rationale of the Powell decision applies in this case no less than in Powell. As in Powell, punishment was the only issue before the jury. The punishment range available to the jury in Powell was the same as in the instant case--from five years to 99 or life, and a fine of up...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ransom v. State
...questioning which the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, and we affirmed. Id., 667 S.W.2d 221 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1983), and, 685 S.W.2d 23 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). In these cases harm was presumed because the failure to allow a proper question denied the defendant the intelligent use of his p......
-
Thomas v. Director
...views on an issue applicable to the case. See Robinson v. State, 720 S.W. 808, 810-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Campbell v. State, 685 S.W.2d 23, 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).23. It was proper for voluntary intoxication to be discussed.24. The Court's voluntary intoxication instruction was not e......
-
Trevino v. State
...been sustained? "THE COURT: Yes, sir." Appellant, citing Mathis v. State, 576 S.W.2d 835 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), and Campbell v. State, 685 S.W.2d 23 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), argues that when the trial court sustained the State's objection to his question it impermissibly restricted his voir dire exam......
-
Guerra v. State
...of his counsel to question the members of the jury panel in order to exercise intelligently peremptory challenges. Campbell v. State, 685 S.W.2d 23 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); Powell v. State, 631 S.W.2d 169 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Mathis v. State, 576 S.W.2d 835 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). Ordinarily, the trial ......