By
Robert O. Dawson
Bryant Smith Chair in Law
University of Texas School of Law
2001 Case Summaries 2000 Case Summaries 1999 Case Summaries
In a criminal trial, the prosecutor is
permitted to question jury panel regarding feelings about juvenile
certifications (00-3-04)
On June 15, 2000, the Houston 14th District Court of Appeals held that a
prosecutor in a criminal trial is permitted to question potential jurors about
their feelings concerning certification of juveniles to criminal court despite
the fact that the certification process does not present any issues for a jury
to decide.
00-3-04. Vannorsdell v. State, UNPUBLISHED, NO. 14-96-00402-CR, 2000 WL 767696,
2000 Tex.App.Lexis ___ (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 6/15/00) [Texas Juvenile
Law 152 (4th Edition 1996)].
Facts: Van Ness Vannorsdell appeals his conviction for attempted capital murder,
asserting error with regard to the trial court's rulings on jurisdiction,
prosecution statements during voir dire, the State's challenges for cause,
admission of illegally seized evidence, the jury charge, improper closing
argument, conducting a separate hearing on cumulation of sentences, admission of
victim impact evidence, and prosecution hearsay assertions on the cumulation of
sentences.
Held: Affirmed.
Opinion Text: Appellant's third issue argues that the trial court erred by
overruling his objections during voir dire to various references by the State to
the fact that appellant had been certified to stand trial as an adult for an
offense he committed while a minor. Among other things, the prosecutor stated:
I really do need to know how you feel about sitting and judging someone who
might have been younger than 17 at the time they committed the offense. This
case has been certified from a juvenile court with a juvenile Judge and has been
brought here so that we can treat this case as an adult case. Is there anybody
here who feels hey, that we should maybe handle juvenile cases differently than
we are here, that we shouldn't be certifying these cases and handling them as
adult cases? Does anybody feel that way?
Appellant objected to such statements on the ground that the jury would never be
instructed regarding age or certification and, therefore, this voir dire
assertion deprived appellant of the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury
under the Texas Constitution. Appellant also moved to discharge the entire panel
based on improper voir dire. Both the objection and motion were overruled.
Appellant complains on appeal that these references related non- evidentiary
facts to the jury and that he was harmed by it in that the trial court sustained
the State's challenge for cause against four jurors "who had been polluted
by such inflammatory no-evidentiary [sic] facts."
A trial judge has wide discretion in controlling voir dire examination. See
Allridge v. State, 850 S.W.2d 471, 479 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). A question is proper
if it seeks to discover a juror's views on an issue applicable to the case. See
Collier v. State, 959 S.W.2d 621, 623 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). Therefore, the
permissible areas of voir dire questioning are broad. See Linnell v. State, 935
S.W.2d 426, 428 (Tex.Crim.App.1996).
We do not agree with appellant's suggestion that prospective jurors may only be
questioned on matters that will be expressly addressed in the jury charge.
Rather, we believe that the concept of issues "applicable to the case"
extends to any consideration that could influence jurors' determination of the
ultimate issues of guilt and punishment. Appellant has cited no authority
prohibiting disclosure to the jury of a minor defendant's certification to stand
trial as an adult, and the State could not know at the time of voir dire whether
appellant or the trial judge would bring appellant's certification to the
attention of the jury during trial. If that fact were disclosed, his being tried
as an adult for a crime committed while a minor could conceivably cause a
prospective juror to be more sympathetic to appellant in determining guilt or
punishment. The State was entitled to uncover and take into consideration any
such feelings in making its decisions on asserting challenges for cause and
exercising peremptory challenges. Because appellant's third issue thus fails to
demonstrate error by the trial court in overruling appellant's objection to the
State's references to appellant being certified to stand trial as an adult, it
is overruled.
Appellant's fourth through seventh issues challenge the trial court's sustaining
of four challenges for cause by the State. These challenges were based on the
respective venire members' concerns regarding certification of a juvenile to be
tried as an adult or with their inability to consider the full range of
punishment.
A trial court's error in sustaining challenges for cause requires reversal only
if the record shows that it deprived the appellant of a lawfully constituted
jury. See Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 394 (Tex.Crim.App.1998), cert. denied,
120 S.Ct. 444 (1999). In this case, because "[a]ppellant has not shown that
any error in granting the State's challenge[s] for cause to these veniremembers
denied him a fair and impartial jury," any such error was harmless. See
Brooks v. State, 990 S.W.2d 278, 289 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct.
384 (1999); Jones, 982 S.W.2d at 394. Therefore, appellant's fourth through
seventh issues are overruled.