# Shelling v. State

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · July 26, 2001 · 52 S.W.3d 213

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676204

## Case

- **Full name:** Roy Neal SHELLING, Jr., Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** July 26, 2001
- **Citations:** 52 S.W.3d 213; 2001 WL 463139
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Mirabal
- **Judges:** Mirabal, Taft, Price, Schneider, Hedges, Nuchia, Brister, Jennings, Wilson, Cohen
- **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/9676204

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that appellant waived complaint that trial court erred in overruling objection to voir dire questions concerning O.J. Simpson trial because that case was racially polarizing when trial objection had been only that defense counsel was “going to object to the reference t…
- holding issue not preserved for appeal when trial objection does not comport with argument on appeal and specific grounds were not apparent from context
- holding issue not preserved for appeal when trial objection does not comport to argument on appeal and specific grounds were not apparent from context

## Opinion text

MIRABAL, Justice,
Dissenting from the en banc opinion.
Because I am persuaded that the O.J. Simpson question in this case was destined to result in the exclusion of the Blacks from the jury, I dissent. It is significant that, during voir dire, the prosecutor made no effort to learn the basis for any prospective juror’s opinion about the O.J. Simpson verdict. Further, the prosecutor did not discuss any legal aspects of the O.J. Simpson case. Rather, simply, if a prospective juror agreed that the O.J. Simpson “not guilty” verdict was “fair,” the prosecutor struck that prospective juror. We should not sanction skirting around Batson 1 by condoning the peremptory strike of a member of a particular minority based solely on one answer to one question about which a vast majority of that minority have been demonstrated to agree. 2 I would sustain issue five.
WILSON, Justice, joins this dissenting opinion.
. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89 , 106 S.Ct. 1712, 1719 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) (holding that prosecutor may not use peremptory strike against prospective juror solely on account of race, or on the assumption that Black jurors as a group will be unable to impartially consider the State's case against a Black defendant).
. In the present case, every Black venireper-son who had formed an opinion, agreed that the OJ. Simpson verdict was fair. The fact that one or two Whites agreed with the O.J. Simpson verdict and were also struck does not validate the process.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676204. Public record. Not legal advice.