OPINION
DON BURGESS, Justice
A jury found Timothy Earl Carroll guilty of aggravated robbery, found Carroll to be an habitual offender, and assessed as punishment forty years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. The sole point of error raised on appeal contends, "The trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant's challenge for cause of potential juror [W.F.] because [W.F.] stated that he could not consider the minimum authorized punishment."
A venireperson who is shown to be biased as a matter of law must be excused if he is challenged for cause. Cordova v. State, 733 S.W.2d 175, 182 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). It is left to the discretion of the trial court to initially determine whether such a bias exists and the court's decision will be reviewed in light of all of the answers given. Green v. State, 840 S.W.2d 394, 405 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); see also Faulder v. State, 745 S.W.2d 327, 339-40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987)( "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.")
After the attorneys completed their voir dire presentations, the judge brought two venirepersons before the bench; the following transpired with the first venireperson:
THE COURT: At this time, Juror No. 31, [R.C.], would you approach, please.
. . . .
THE COURT: Hi, how are you doing, ma'am? For the record, your name is [R.C.]?
[VENIREPERSON]: Yes.
THE COURT: Ms. [C.] I believe, [Defense Counsel], do you have a question you wish to ask?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Ms. [C.], earlier in response to a question you told me that you could not consider - if a person had a prior conviction, you could not consider - that there would not be a fact situation where you could consider the minimum. Would that be a fair statement?
. . . .
[VENIREPERSON]: Not before the courtroom.
[STATE'S ATTORNEY]: Most people haven't. Most people when they hear about aggravated robbery, they hear about horrible fact situations and a lot of them are but there are fact situations that are less than horrible. Let me just talk about a little fact situation and there are just all kinds of them just like this that could be an aggravated robbery. You might have a situation where a lady had two - had a young child that was starving, hungry. She couldn't find food and walked up to a lady that was 70 years old and said, "Give me $5 or something."
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I object. That's asking the witness to commit to a particular fact situation.
[STATE'S ATTORNEY]: I think I should be allowed to go into fact situations.
THE COURT: I'm going to overrule your objection and allow him to continue at this time.
[STATE'S ATTORNEY]: Goes up to a lady that's 70 and says, "Give me $5; and if you don't do it, I'm going to slap you." That would be an aggravated robbery if you believe that. After she was found guilty, the facts might show that she went to the penitentiary, as [Defense Counsel] said, 20 years ago maybe for a joint of marijuana on two occasions. Now, those are misdemeanor cases. In that fact situation, you would have a situation where the minimum is 25 years and maximum up to life or 99 years. So, aggravated robbery can be committed by many, many different types of people; many, many different reasons; and many different types of backgrounds. Some of them having gone to the penitentiary. So, my question is going back: Do you still have the same kind what I call the knee-jerk reaction to say somebody is guilty of aggravated robbery no matter what the facts are? Someone has been to the penitentiary, no matter what the facts are and why they went, I would never ever consider a minimum of 25 years; or do you have an open mind and would want to hear the facts of that particular problem?
[VENIREPERSON]: I would like to hear the facts, but I think I would probably go the other way.
[STATE'S ATTORNEY]: Do you have a closed mind and say I never could, no matter what the facts are, no matter what type of robbery it was, no matter the reason the person went to the penitentiary?
[VENIREPERSON]: I can hear the facts. I guess I could.
[STATE'S ATTORNEY]: Well, the question, though, is not can you hear the facts but would you have --
[VENIREPERSON]: An open mind?
[STATE'S ATTORNEY]: Before you hear anything, do you have an open mind that you could consider a minimum just as you could consider life; or are you going to say I'm automatically not going to give a minimum.
[VENIREPERSON]: I think where I was coming from, knowing that the minimum sentencing won't be serving the minimum sentence, he can get off with the other one; and 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. Because if he has done the crime and he only does a few years for it, that's not paying for the crime.
[STATE'S ATTORNEY]: No, ma'am. What the facts are or no matter what he went to the penitentiary before for, you wouldn't consider that at all.
[VENIREPERSON]: Like I say, I could consider the facts; but the other thing would be in my mind.
[STATE'S ATTORNEY]: Well, could you - getting back to the same situation. Could you consider the minimum range; or do you have that door is already closed right now before you hear a thing?
[VENIREPERSON]: It's not closed. I have enough of an open door in my mind right here that I could consider it.
[STATE'S ATTORNEY]: Okay.
THE COURT: [Defense Counsel], do you have any further questions you want to ask of Ms. [C.]?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Ms. [C.], you stated to [Defense Counsel] that you could not consider the minimum range of punishment if it were shown.
[VENIREPERSON]: That's what I'm saying. That doubt would be in there.
THE COURT: What doubt?
[VENIREPERSON]: There would be a doubt in my mind, the doubt that I said about only serving so much time
when someone brought up the parole thing.
THE COURT: Could you consider the minimum range of punishment, 25 years, if you found someone guilty of aggravated robbery, find out they have two prior convictions?
[VENIREPERSON]: I'm not in that position. I don't know. My mind would probably listen to it. Just to who I am, I would listen to what the priors were.
THE COURT: Okay. Any further questions, [State's Attorney]?
[STATE'S ATTORNEY]: Are you saying that you can't say right now because it would depend on what the facts are of the aggravated robbery?
[VENIREPERSON]: Right.
[STATE'S ATTORNEY]: The facts of why they went to the penitentiary, what they went for?
[VENIREPERSON]: Right. But I would have - there is that doubt in there whether I would have a problem. I think what has got me now is the parole coming up and only serving so much of the term.
[STATE'S ATTORNEY]: The judge would - he would give you a charge that would tell, basically, what Mr. - what the law is, what [Defense Counsel]
told you; and in this type of offense, they would have to serve day for day, at least 20 percent - excuse me, 50 percent of their sentence before they are eligible for parole. And then, it's up to the Board of Pardons and Paroles. And the judge will also say that you shouldn't consider that for any purposes. That's out of our control.
[VENIREPERSON]: Right.
[STATE'S ATTORNEY]: You are not saying you wouldn't be able to follow that law, are you?
[VENIREPERSON]: No.
[STATE'S ATTORNEY]: So, you are not saying that you wouldn't be able to consider in a proper - you will consider the minimum range of punishment in the fact situation, knowing that there are many different ways you can commit aggravated robbery and knowing there are many different reasons you can be sent to the penitentiary in the past for a felony case. Some of them you can't be sent. You can get up to six months in jail now. There are all kinds of fact situations. Some of them it would be appropriate to consider 25 or return 25?
[VENIREPERSON]: Right.
[STATE'S ATTORNEY]: Others it wouldn't be. Maybe the majority it isn't. But in some situations, all we can ask is would you have an open mind?
[VENIREPERSON]: Would I be open to 25? At this point, I can tell you, yes, I probably would.
THE COURT: [Defense Counsel], any further questions?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, sir.
THE COURT: Thank you. You can be seated.
. . . .
THE COURT: Do you still want to challenge this juror?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Absolutely.
THE COURT: Okay. Any response?
[STATE'S ATTORNEY]: She said she could consider it, Judge. I think it makes her eligible.
THE COURT: I'm going to grant his challenge for cause.
To summarize, the venireperson first said she could not consider the minimum punishment, she was then rehabilitated by the prosecutor and said she could follow the law.
The following then transpired with the second venireperson:
THE COURT: Mr. [F.], would you approach, please, sir.
. . . .
THE COURT: Hi, how are you doing, sir?
[VENIREPERSON]: All right.
THE COURT: For the record, is it [W. F.]?
[VENIREPERSON]: [W. F.].
THE COURT: You are Juror No. 32. [Defense Counsel], do you have a question?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Mr. [F.], you told me during the voir dire to the general panel that if someone was convicted and then they - he had two prior felony convictions that there was no - you could not consider the possibility of a minimum...
