Fransaw v. State, A14-82-022CR
| Decision Date | 30 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. A14-82-022CR,A14-82-022CR |
| Citation | 671 S.W.2d 539 |
| Parties | Clifton FRANSAW, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. (14th Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Dan Gerson, Houston, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Jr., Houston, for appellee.
Before J. CURTISS BROWN, C.J., and DRAUGHN and ELLIS, JJ.
Appeal is taken from a conviction of voluntary manslaughter. A jury found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at life imprisonment.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred by overruling his challenges for cause of two jurors; by allowing the State to impeach him with a felony conviction which was not final; and in a supplemental brief he maintains that the indictment was fundamentally defective. Finding these contentions without merit, we affirm the conviction.
In grounds of error one and two, appellant contends that the trial court erred by overruling his challenges for cause of two venire members. Appellant's contention that venire member Churtz was biased against the minimum punishment for murder is based on a lengthy colloquy between counsel, the Court, and Churtz. Churtz was asked by defense counsel whether she could consider the minimum range of punishment for murder. She replied, "Not if someone killed someone." Churtz was then questioned extensively outside the hearing of the venire. The prosecutor explained that punishment is based on the evidence heard at trial, and that jurors are asked to keep an open mind. When Churtz insisted that she believed five years was not punishment for taking someone's life, the Court proceeded to rehabilitate her. Finally, she said she would keep an open mind, and that there could be cases where she might consider the minimum punishment.
We do not normally approve of lengthy attempts by the Court to rehabilitate a juror who has repeatedly and firmly expressed a bias or prejudice. However, the Court of Criminal Appeals has expressly approved juror rehabilitations similar to the one here. Barefoot v. State, 596 S.W.2d 875 (Tex.Crim.App.1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 3146, 69 L.Ed.2d 996 (1981). Accordingly, we overrule appellant's first ground of error.
Appellant next argues that venire member Bell was biased and should have been stricken for cause because he was unable to accept appellant's right to remain silent and present no evidence in his defense. Defense counsel asked whether anyone felt appellant was guilty because he was charged with a crime. Venire member Bell nodded his head, whereupon a conversation took place outside the hearing of the remaining panel. Bell erroneously believed that the State must have had a preponderance of the evidence before charging appellant. Bell said he would not automatically find appellant guilty, but that he would wait and listen to the evidence. Barefoot is likewise controlling here. We hold that the trial court did not err by overruling appellant's challenge for cause of venire member Bell. Appellant's second ground of error is overruled.
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fransaw v. Lynaugh
...him to life imprisonment. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a published opinion, Fransaw v. State, 671 S.W.2d 539 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1982), and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused Fransaw's petition for discretionary Fransaw then petitioned the state......
-
Wunneburger v. State
...in determining the propriety of the use of a prior conviction for impeachment purposes. In making that determination, we find Fransaw v. State, 671 S.W.2d 539 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, no pet.) instructive. In that case, the State sought to impeach Fransaw by showing a prior con......
-
G.B.R., In Interest of
... ... This is an appeal from an order extending the commitment of Appellant to a state hospital for a period of twelve months. We conclude that a unanimous verdict is not required in ... ...
-
Westbrook v. State
...See Russell v. State, 727 S.W.2d 92, 93-94 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1987, pet. ref'd) (opinion on reh'g); Fransaw v. State, 671 S.W.2d 539 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, pet. ref'd); Von Byrd, 569 S.W.2d at 883. Westbrook has not cited any contradictory cases nor has he distinguished his ca......