# State v. Morales

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 14, 2008 · 253 S.W.3d 686

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680199

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Texas v. David MORALES, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** May 14, 2008
- **Citations:** 253 S.W.3d 686; 2008 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 644; 2008 WL 2081617
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Womack
- **Judges:** Price, Keller, Meyers, Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb, Cochran, Womack
- **Cited by:** 268 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/9680199

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating “the trial court could rationally infer that the appellant’s trial attorneys made a difficult tactical decision to leave Wyatt on the jury because, even though she was an assistant district attorney, she was still preferable to the other prospective jurors against whom…
- explaining that “unless there is a record sufficient to demonstrate that counsel’s conduct was not the product of a strategic or tactical decision, a reviewing court should presume that trial counsel’s performance was constitutionally adequate”
- noting that, “unless there is a 10 record sufficient to demonstrate that counsel’s conduct was not the product of a strategic or tactical decision, a reviewing court should presume that trial counsel’s performance was constitutionally adequate”
- noting that, “unless there is a record sufficient to demonstrate that counsel’s conduct was not the product of a strategic or tactical 29 decision, a reviewing court should presume that trial counsel’s performance was constitutionally adequate”
- noting that, “unless there is a record sufficient to demonstrate that counsel’s conduct was not the product of a 9 strategic or tactical decision, a reviewing court should presume that trial counsel’s performance was constitutionally adequate”

## Opinion text

WOMACK, J.,
filed a concurring opinion.
I do not agree that the case involves the Sixth-Amendment doctrine of implied bias (see supra, at 692-95). I think the juror was subject to a challenge for cause because she was, in the language of Code of Criminal Procedure article 35.16(c)(1), “related in the third degree of consanguinity ... to any prosecutor in the case.” She was related in the zero degree of consanguinity to a prosecutor in the case — she was a prosecutor in the case, as was every other prosecutor in the District Attorney’s office.
I concur in the judgment of the Court to remand the cause to the Court of Appeals, but I would have that court decide whether it was ineffective assistance for the appellant’s attorney to fail to challenge the prosecutor.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680199. Public record. Not legal advice.