Smith v. State, 65127
| Decision Date | 13 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 65127,65127 |
| Parties | Milton Ray SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
This is an appeal from a jury trial wherein the appellant was convicted of aggravated assault. Punishment was assessed by the jury at 10 years imprisonment.
Appellant, in his sole ground of error, contends the trial court committed reversible error in refusing his motion to shuffle the jury panel. The record reflects that the appellant timely presented the motion to shuffle after the jury panel was seated and prior to voir dire examination. See Alexander v. State, 523 S.W.2d 720 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). The motion was denied by the trial court.
Article 35.11, V.A.C.C.P., provides:
"The trial judge, upon the demand of the defendant or his attorney, or the State's counsel, shall cause the names of all the members of the general panel drawn or assigned as jurors in such case to be placed in a receptacle and wellshaken, and the clerk shall draw therefrom the names of a sufficient number of jurors from which a jury may be selected to try such case, and such names shall be written, in the order drawn, on the jury list from which the jury is to be selected to try such case, and write the names as drawn upon two slips of paper and deliver one slip to the State's counsel and the other to the defendant or his attorney." (emphasis added)
Under this statute, a defendant or the State is entitled, upon demand, to have the jury panel reshuffled. Davis v. State, 573 S.W.2d 780 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Como v. State, 557 S.W.2d 93 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). The State argues that since the district clerk, as a routine matter, shuffled the jurors prior to the seating of the panel, the statute is satisfied and "[t]here is no requirement that the Court order the clerk to continue to reshuffle the jury until the defense counsel is totally satisfied with the seating arrangement." We do not find this argument persuasive. Article 35.11 gives the defendant an absolute right to have the jury shuffled. This, of course, does not allow the defendant to demand that the panel be continually reshuffled after his first motion has been granted. He is entitled, however, to the granting of that first motion,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramey v. Davis
...See Tex. Code Crim. Pro. art. 35.11. Both the State and the defendant have the absolute right to one jury shuffle. Smith v. State , 648 S.W.2d 695, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983).11 Ramey made his observation only minutes before the jury was sworn. Tr. Vol. 30 at 12. Under Texas law, a Batson c......
-
Ransom v. State
...See e.g., Rey v. State, 897 S.W.2d 333, 345 (Tex.Cr.App.1995); Turner v. State, 897 S.W.2d 786 (Tex.Cr.App.1995); Smith v. State, 648 S.W.2d 695 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). On the other hand, trial error is error which occurs during the presentation of the case to the jury. Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 3......
-
Thomas v. Director
...See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 35.11. Both the State and the defendant have the absolute rightto one jury shuffle. Smith v. State, 648 S.W.2d 695, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). In Miller-El I, the Supreme Court held that "the prosecution's decision to seek a jury shuffle when a predominant nu......
-
Hood v. State
...vel non, of the error. A ready example is violation of Article 35.11, V.A.C.C.P., the jury shuffle statute. E.g., Smith v. State, 648 S.W.2d 695 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). In cases involving breach of many procedural statutes the record will contain no concrete data from which an appellate court ca......