holding state trial court properly granted the prosecution’s chal lenge for cause to a venire member who expressed confusion over her ability to answer the former Texas capital sentencing special issue inquiring into whether the defendant had acted “deliberately” independently of her earlier finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had “intentionally” killed the victim
How later courts described this case
- holding state trial court properly granted the prosecution’s chal lenge for cause to a venire member who expressed confusion over her ability to answer the former Texas capital sentencing special issue inquiring into whether the defendant had acted “deliberately” independently of her earlier finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had “intentionally” killed the victim
- holding that a witness’s 5 statement that the appellant had been in prison “was undoubtedly inadmissible and prejudicial testimony, having no relevance to any issue at the guilt stage of trial” but that “that bare fact, unembellished, was not so inflammatory as to undermine the efficacy of the trial court’s instruction to disregard it”
- holding that while witness’s reference to defendant’s prior incarceration was “undoubtedly inadmissible and prejudicial testimony” that had no relevance to guilt-innocence phase of trial, “that bare fact, unembellished, was not so inflammatory as to undermine the efficacy of the trial court’s instruction to disregard it”
- concluding that evidence that defendant had been incarcerated, unembell- ished, was not so inflammatory as to undermine efficacy of trial court’s instruction to disregard
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ONION, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
I concur only in the result reached by the majority. I would disassociate myself from much of the language and some of the reasoning used. Much of the discussion in the majority opinion is needless and unnecessary to the proper disposition of certain grounds of error, and expresses only the personal views of the writer or a minority of the Court. See, e.g., the discussion on whether the trial court erroneously granted the State’s challenge for cause to Maxine Hooper, a prospective juror. I freely predict that much of the unnecessary language will resurface in future opinions as quotes from the Court’s opinion in Gardner when the minority viewpoint is again offered for adoption. We will then be told we have already claimed the renegade in Gardner.
CAMPBELL, J., joins this opinion.