# Chappell v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · February 3, 1993 · 850 S.W.2d 508

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9672476

## Case

- **Full name:** William Wesley CHAPPELL, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** February 3, 1993
- **Citations:** 850 S.W.2d 508; 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 27; 1993 WL 19975
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McCORMICK
- **Judges:** Baird, Iia, Iic, Maloney, McCORMICK, Meyers, Miller, Overstreet
- **Cited by:** 47 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/9672476

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing trial court implicitly overruled defendant's objection to jury shuffle by granting State's motion to shuffle
- holding defendant’s objection to jury shuffle was overruled when trial court granted State’s motion to shuffle
- finding automatic reversible error where statute allowing only one jury shuffle was violated

## Opinion text

McCORMICK, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
The purpose of a shuffle is to assure the random selection and seating of prospective jurors. The refusal of a shuffle to which a defendant is entitled presumes harm since the random selection is not assured. Here, however, such harm cannot be presumed since the random selection we require has been satisfied. Since there is no possibility that the appellant was injured by the second shuffle, the error, if any, was harmless.
I respectfully dissent.
OVERSTREET, J., joins this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9672476. Public record. Not legal advice.