# Ortega v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · November 10, 1970 · 462 S.W.2d 296

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9673675

## Case

- **Full name:** Melchor ORTEGA, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** November 10, 1970
- **Citations:** 462 S.W.2d 296; 1970 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1632
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Onion
- **Judges:** Morrison, Onion, Woodley
- **Cited by:** 23 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/9673675

## Opinion text

ONION, Judge
(concurring).
I reluctantly concur. The State sought and secured the death penalty. Eighty-four prospective jurors were interrogated on voir dire. Of these, 24 were excused upon challenges for cause by the State because of their opposition to the death penalty as a punishment for crime. The appellant was not permitted any voir dire examination of 23 of these prospective jurors. Each of these individuals was challenged for cause by the State after some interrogation. They were then interrogated by the trial judge. Upon being convinced the jurors were disqualified under the statute and the Witherspoon mandate, the judge sustained the challenge in each instance without permitting (though requested) any voir dire examination at all by the appellant. No opportunity for rehabilitation was allowed. While the trial court should have broad discretion in limiting voir dire examination, such discretion can be abused. While reversible error may not be reflected by the particular circumstances of this case, I would caution trial judges against using this decision as authority for the proposition that once a juror has answered questions in such a way as to meet the Wither-spoon test and subject himself to the State’s challenge for cause, the right of the defendant who is on trial for his life may be completely denied any right to question the prospective juror at all. I do not read the statutes as indicating this to be the legislative intent. 1 If such practice is allowed to persist it would only be logical to permit it to extend to all challenges for cause and hold it not reversible error to refuse voir dire examination by the defense.
. One exception would be where a prospective juror has formed a conclusion or opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused which influences him in finding a verdict. This is, however, an express statutory exception. Article 35.16, V.A.C.C.P.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9673675. Public record. Not legal advice.