Mathis v. State
| Decision Date | 10 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 53463,53463 |
| Citation | 576 S.W.2d 835 |
| Parties | Willie Earl MATHIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of murder; the punishment is imprisonment for life.
In two grounds of error the appellant complains that his voir dire examination of the jury was restricted to the extent that he could not intelligently exercise his right to make peremptory challenges. He argues that the court erred in not permitting him to ascertain the prospective juror's attitudes and feelings about assessing a minimum punishment of five years' imprisonment for the offense of murder and in not permitting him to ascertain the prospective juror's attitudes and feelings for granting or denying probation to a defendant after his conviction for the offense of murder. We conclude after considering the record that appellant's counsel was not allowed sufficient latitude in voir dire examination. The matters complained of require that the judgment be reversed.
The right to be represented by counsel, guaranteed by Article 1, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution, encompasses the right of counsel to question the members of the jury panel in order to intelligently exercise his peremptory challenges. Mathis v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 627, 322 S.W.2d 629 (1959); DeLaRosa v. State, 414 S.W.2d 668 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Burkett v. State, 516 S.W.2d 147 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Hernandez v. State, 508 S.W.2d 853 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Abron v. State, 523 S.W.2d 405 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). The trial court, in its sound discretion, can and should control the voir dire examination of the venire; however, the permissible areas of questioning the panel in order to exercise peremptory challenges are broad and cannot be unnecessarily limited. Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 823 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).
Bias against the range of punishment is a proper area of inquiry for both challenges for cause and peremptory challenges. When the contention is that the trial court erred in denying a challenge for cause, no reversible error is shown unless the defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges and one or more objectionable juror sat on the jury. However, when the question is asked for the purpose of exercising peremptory challenges, the test for injury is entirely different. If the question is proper, an answer denied prevents intelligent use of the peremptory challenge and harm is shown. Smith v. State, supra. As was stated in Mathis v. State, supra, ". . . it is immaterial how the jurors would have answered the question, for, whatever their answers, the appellant was entitled to know their answers in order to enable him to exercise his peremptory challenges."
In Plair v. State, 102 Tex.Cr.R. 628, 279 S.W. 267 (1926), it was held to be reversible error to refuse the request to interrogate the jurors individually as to their views concerning the suspended sentence law and whether they objected to giving application thereto in a proper case. The Court said:
"(T)he right to appear by counsel carries with it the right of counsel to interrogate each juror individually, to the end that he may form his own conclusions after this personal contact with the juror as to whether, in the counsel's judgment, he would be acceptable to him, or whether on the other hand he should exercise a peremptory challenge to keep him off the jury."
In the instant case the court first qualified the jury panel as a whole concerning general areas of the law. The court explained the range of punishment and the probation law as it applied to this case. The court asked the panel whether there was anyone who could not consider probation in a murder case. No prospective juror stated to the court that he or she could not fairly consider probation. Thereafter the prosecutor questioned the panel and individual jurors concerning the range of punishment and the law of probation. At that time one juror stated to the court and the prosecutor that if the appellant was found guilty of murder he could not consider probation as a form of punishment. This prospective juror was excused upon the appellant's challenge for cause. When the appellant's attorney questioned the panel concerning the range of punishment and the probation law two more jurors expressed reservations about probation. Appellant's complaints concern the following ruling by the trial court during the voir dire examination:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...members of the jury in order to intelligently exercise both peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. See Mathis v. State, 576 S.W.2d 835, 836 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Abron v. State, 523 S.W.2d 405, 407 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); De La Rosa v. State, supra. Nevertheless, the trial court may impose......
-
Allridge v. State
...use of the peremptory challenge and harm is shown." Powell v. State, 631 S.W.2d 169, 170 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) [quoting Mathis v. State, 576 S.W.2d 835, 837 (Tex.Cr.App.1979) ]; Gardner, supra, at 689; Smith, supra, at 643. Consequently, a defendant must show that the question he sought to ask ......
-
Allridge v. State
...to voir dire and the harm is presumed. Art. I, § 10, Tex. Const.; Smith v. State, 703 S.W.2d 641 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); and Mathis v. State, 576 S.W.2d 835 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). The State responded in its brief that the question asked by appellant's counsel was not proper. Therefore, it was not an......
-
Livingston v. State
...area of inquiry before exercising a challenge for cause or a peremptory challenge. See Carter v. State, supra; see also Mathis v. State, 576 S.W.2d 835 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Martinez v. State, 588 S.W.2d 954 With all of this in mind, we turn our attention to the examination of the three venire......
-
Jury Selection and Voir Dire
...voir dire examination simply because the questions asked are repetitious of those asked by the court and prosecutor. Mathis v. State, 576 S.W.2d 835 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). This is because each party has the right to question potential jurors in their own individual manner to emphasize a po......
-
Jury Selection and Voir Dire
...voir dire examination simply because the questions asked are repetitious of those asked by the court and prosecutor. Mathis v. State, 576 S.W.2d 835 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). This is because each party has the right to question potential jurors in their own individual manner to emphasize a po......
-
Preliminaries
..., and the scope of the voir dire phase of trial is largely a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Mathis v. State , 576 S.W.2d 835, 837 (Tex. 1979). Counsel’s question as to whether any of the jury panel had strong feelings against the minimum five-year penalty for murder ......
-
Jury Selection and Voir Dire
...voir dire examination simply because the questions asked are repetitious of those asked by the court and prosecutor. Mathis v. State, 576 S.W.2d 835 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). This is because each party has the right to question potential jurors in their own individual manner to emphasize a po......