Hartfield v. State
Decision Date | 17 September 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 59343,59343 |
Citation | 645 S.W.2d 436 |
Parties | Jerry HARTFIELD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
The appellant was found guilty of capital murder, and his punishment was fixed at death. He complains that a venirewoman was excluded improperly from the jury and that his confession was received improperly.
Section 12.31(b) of our Penal Code requires that:
The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution are violated if Section 12.31(b) is used to exclude jurors on grounds broader than those established in the Witherspoon line of cases. 1 Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980); Shippy v. State, 556 S.W.2d 246, 257 (Tex.Cr.App.) (Roberts, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 935, 98 S.Ct. 422, 54 L.Ed.2d 294 (1977).
Adams v. Texas, supra, 448 U.S. at 45, 100 S.Ct. at 2526, teaches that:
In the Texas scheme of special issues (V.A.C.C.P., Art. 37.071(b)), this means that a juror may be excluded either because he is not willing to accept that death may be a punishment in certain circumstances or because he is not willing and able to answer the statutory questions impartially, without conscious distortion or bias. Id. at 46, 100 S.Ct. at 2527. Yet a juror is not to be excused merely because his views about the death penalty might influence the manner in which he exercises his discretion within the guidelines permitted him under Texas law. Id. at 46, 100 S.Ct. at 2527. Section 12.31(b) may not be used to exclude jurors whose deliberations would be affected only by greater seriousness and gravity or emotional involvement, or who cannot state positively whether their deliberations would be "affected" in any way. Id. at 49-50, 100 S.Ct. at 2528-2529.
The latter passage from Adams v. Texas, which we have quoted above, well describes Venirewoman Hlozek in this case. Her answers to about 75 questions from the court and counsel established three things: she would not vote automatically against the imposition of capital punishment; 2 her answers to the special issues at the punishment stage of the trial would be based on the evidence; and she could not promise that she would be unaffected by her knowledge of the possible penalty.
The burden of these answers (not all of which were perfectly clear) was that the venirewoman would follow the law, that she would base her verdict on the evidence, that she could answer Yes to the special issues, but that her answers might be affected by her knowledge of the possible penalty. The application of Section 12.31(b) to excuse her was a violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980). Even one such violation means the death penalty may not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bridge v. State
...his counsel elicited, on cross-examination, that appellant did not have a reputation for violence. Appellant cites Hartfield v. State, 645 S.W.2d 436 (Tex.Cr.App.1983), and Roney v. State, 632 S.W.2d 598 (Tex.Cr.App.1982), to support his claim of insufficient evidence to support the evidenc......
-
Ex parte Russell
...exclusion was in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Adams, supra; Hartfield v. State, 645 S.W.2d 436, 441 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). At the very least his dismissal was premature. Lackey v. State, 638 S.W.2d 439, 476 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) (Opinion on App......
-
Hartfield v. Quarterman
...Appeals reversed petitioner Jerry Hartfield's capital murder conviction and remanded his case for a new trial. See Hartfield v. State, 645 S.W.2d 436, 441 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). No new trial was ever conducted, yet Hartfield has remained in state confinement for nearly three decades, serving ......
-
State v. Penix
...cause for an entirely new trial, rather than reform the sentence to life imprisonment * * *." (Emphasis added.) Hartfield v. State (Tex.Crim.App.1980), 645 S.W.2d 436, 442. This rather burdensome remedy results from an inability under Texas criminal procedure to conduct a new sentencing pro......