Hunter v. State, 45056
| Decision Date | 14 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 45056,45056 |
| Citation | 481 S.W.2d 137 |
| Parties | C. H. HUNTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
John F. Pichinson by Robert S. Dickey, Corpus Christi, for appellant.
J. Taylor Brite, Dist. Atty., Jourdanton, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This appeal arises out of a conviction for felony theft where the punishment was assessed at 4 years.
The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged and a recitation of the facts is unnecessary. Both of appellant's grounds of error relate to the voir dire examination of the jury panel.
Initially, appellant urges that the trial court erred in refusing to sustain challenges for cause to seven prospective jurors. He contends their interrogation during voir dire examination revealed them to be biased in favor of the State because of their personal or business relationship with the complaining witness, Everett L. Booe, Jr. See Article 35.16(a)(8), Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.
The record reflects that all seven prospective jurors had known the complaining witness for some time. Some had gone to school with him and others had dealt with him in business matters, etc. None of these jury panel members stated they were biased in favor of the State because of any present or past relationship with the complaining witness. In fact, each such prospective juror indicated he could be a fair and impartial juror in the case.
The record does not reflect that the appellant exhausted his peremptory challenges or that he was forced to accept jurors who were objectionable to him.
We find no error in the trial court's action in refusing to sustain the challenges for cause. See Article 35.21, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.
Next, appellant claims the court erred in refusing to permit him to propound the following question to prospective jurors who stated they had personal or business relationship with the complaining witness:
'By virtue of your personal knowledge of the truthfulness of Mr. Booe, would you place greater credence on his testimony than you would on someone who contradicted him whom you did not know?'
The question, as framed, was an attempt to require the prospective jurors to commit themselves as to how they would pass upon the credibility of the witnesses prior to trial and the receipt of evidence. As framed, the question was improper and the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harkey v. State
...asked in an improper form may be disallowed by the court. Hernandez v. State, 508 S.W.2d 853 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Hunter v. State, 481 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). In oral argument before this Court, appellant's counsel conceded that the trial court did not prevent him from rephrasing his qu......
-
Maddux v. State
...concluding that the question was proper, we contrasted our prior holding regarding a similar question 1 propounded in Hunter v. State, 481 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). In Hernandez, this Court stated [o]ur opinion [in Hunter ] emphasized that the question was improper as framed, and by thi......
-
Hughes v. State
...to commit themselves as to how they would pass upon the credibility of the psychiatric witnesses prior to trial. Cf. Hunter v. State, 481 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). Thus, the question was improper and the court properly disallowed Appellant contends that the trial court erred in ruling t......
-
Abron v. State
...848, 35 L.Ed.2d 46 (1973). (3) Questions asked in an improper form may be disallowed. E.g., Hernandez v. State, supra; Hunter v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 481 S.W.2d 137. And (4) the court may restrict inquiry into the personal habits of jurors as opposed to inquiry into personal prejudices or mo......