stating that objecting party must state that a remaining veniremember is objectionable, although the objecting party need not state why the remaining veniremember is objectionable
How later courts described this case
- stating that objecting party must state that a remaining veniremember is objectionable, although the objecting party need not state why the remaining veniremember is objectionable
- holding that trial court should have sustained defense counsel’s challenge for cause against juror who served on the grand jury which found the indictment
- holding that if a challenge for cause is improperly denied, the accused need not state why the identified juror left on veni-re was objectionable
- analyzing denial of challenges for cause on the merits where appellant demonstrated harm by identifying a specific individual as an objectionable juror
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HAWKINS, Presiding Judge
(dissenting).
My brethren have reached the conclusion that appellant’s motion for rehearing should be granted. My views upon the point at issue are expressed in the original opinion affirming the judgment, and they remain unchanged. It follows that in my judgment the motion for rehearing should be overruled:
Accordingly, I register my dissent to granting the motion with reference to the original opinion for my reasons.