Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 10 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 69147,69147 |
| Citation | 682 S.W.2d 538 |
| Parties | Arthur Lee WILLIAMS, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
James Stafford, Houston, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., Timothy G. Taft, Keno Henderson, Andy Tobias and Charley Davidson, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
Appellant was convicted of capital murder; the punishment in this case is death. Appellant raises eleven grounds of error. Six relate to jury selection, two address rulings on the admissibility of evidence, two complain of jury argument, and one challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.
We first address the six grounds of error relating to the jury selection process. In three of these appellant complains of the trial court excluding prospective jurors on the state's challenge for cause. Reliance is placed on Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980), which held it is improper to exclude a prospective juror in a capital case merely because he would be affected in deliberations by the fact that the death penalty might be imposed. It is not error, however, to exclude a prospective juror who would automatically vote against the death penalty regardless of the evidence. E.g. Griffin v. State, 665 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Woolls v. State, 665 S.W.2d 455 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Jernigan v. State, 661 S.W.2d 936 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). The three prospective jurors addressed in appellant's grounds of error were properly subject to challenge for cause by the state on this ground, as reflected in the following excerpts of the record:
The grounds of error are overruled.
Two other grounds of error are based on rulings by the trial court denying appellant's challenge for cause. Appellant contends prospective juror Hamilton was subject to challenge for cause because of her personal acquaintance with the deceased and his widow and children. The record reflects the following on this subject:
BY MR. STAFFORD:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nethery v. State
...U.S. 412, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985); Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980); Williams v. State, 682 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Woolls v. State, 665 S.W.2d 455 The grounds of error are overruled. Appellant challenged five venirepersons on the basis o......
-
Montoya v. Scott
...of correctness under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(d) and therefore precluded federal habeas relief. Id.30 Accord Williams v. State, 682 S.W.2d 538, 541-43 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) (holding that trial court properly rejected challenge for cause to juror who attended church with murder victim and victim's ......
-
Little v. State
...juror subject to a challenge for cause. Chambers v. State, 568 S.W.2d 313, 323 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). See also Williams v. State, 682 S.W.2d 538, 542-543 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Anderson v. State, 633 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.Cr.App.1982). There was no showing that Evans was a biased juror as a matter of law......
-
Williams v. State
...would not have meant anything to this Court in cases that were then pending on appeal. This is clearly reflected in Williams v. State, 682 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.Cr.App.1984), which defendant is not the same Williams as here, where this Court did not mention, much less discuss, whether the defenda......