# Killebrew v. State

> Court of Appeals of Texas · December 15, 1987 · 746 S.W.2d 245

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9646745

## Case

- **Full name:** Jessie Wayne KILLEBREW, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** December 15, 1987
- **Citations:** 746 S.W.2d 245; 1987 Tex. App. LEXIS 9040; 1987 WL 3266
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Cornelius
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9646745

## Opinion text

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In his motion for rehearing, Killebrew argues that we have misstated the facts regarding jurors who served in intervening cases. He emphasizes that eight jurors in his case rather than four had intervening jury service in other cases.
Our opinion states that four of the jurors from the panel in this case served on a jury on December 9, 1986, in a case in which the voir dire instruction from the court referenced the eligibility of that defendant for probation. The offense in that intervening case was delivery of marihuana, an offense dissimilar from the aggravated assault charge for which Killebrew was tried. Four other jurors in the instant case served on a different intervening case which also involved a marihuana charge, but the voir dire instructions in that case did not include a reference to probation eligibility.
Killebrew cites United States v. Brown, 699 F.2d 704 (5th Cir.1983), as supporting his position. Brown reaffirmed that “jurors who have interim service on a convicting jury in a similar case in which the government presented the same prosecuting witnesses may be challenged for the reason of implied bias.” United States v. *249 Brown, supra, at 708 (emphasis added). The intervening cases on which the jurors here sat were not similar to this case and were not cases in which the prosecution presented the same witnesses. Thus, Brown is inapposite.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9646745. Public record. Not legal advice.