explaining that qualified prospective jurors “must be able, in a sense, to conceive both of a situation in which the minimum penalty would be appropriate and of a situation in which the maximum situation would be appropriate.” (citing Fuller v. State, 829 S.W.2d 191, 200 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), overruled on other grounds by Castillo v. State, 913 S.W.2d 529 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995)
How later courts described this case
- explaining that qualified prospective jurors “must be able, in a sense, to conceive both of a situation in which the minimum penalty would be appropriate and of a situation in which the maximum situation would be appropriate.” (citing Fuller v. State, 829 S.W.2d 191, 200 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), overruled on other grounds by Castillo v. State, 913 S.W.2d 529 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995)
- noting that both defendant and State may challenge for cause any juror who has a bias or prejudice against the law that either party is entitled to rely upon; stating that "[b]ias against the law is refusal to consider or apply the relevant law. It exists when a venireperson's beliefs or opinions 'would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and oath'"
- stating that bias against the law exists when a juror=s beliefs Awould prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties@
- stating that bias against the law exists when a juror’s beliefs “would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BAIRD, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority, that in the instant case, the proper question of whether the juror could consider the minimum punishment if a child was the vietim/or witness was not the type of question where a challenge for cause would be warranted upon *144 receipt of a negative answer. 1 I write separately to make clear that in some instances, the inquiry at issue here could result in valid challenges for cause.
I.
“Our precedents teach that qualified prospective jurors must be able to consider the full range of punishment applicable to the offense submitted for their consideration.” Fuller v. State, 829 S.W.2d 191, 200 (Tex.Cr.App.1992)(citing Pyles v. State, 755 S.W.2d 98, 103 (Tex.Cr.App.1988); Nethery v. State, 692 S.W.2d 686, 691-92 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); Barrow v. State, 688 S.W.2d 860, 861 (Tex.Cr.App.1985)). Jurors can be challenged for cause, if, in a proper case, the juror is unable to assess the minimum or maximum punishment. 2 If the crime, as defined by law, specifically includes the element that the victim is a child, then in those types of inquiry, a juror would be subject to a challenge for cause if the full range of punishment could not be considered. 3
With these comments, I concur in the judgment of the court.
. See Maddux v. State, 862 S.W.2d 590 , (Tex.Cr.App.1993), for a discussion concerning why the instant inquiry was a proper question.
. When a question to the venire goes beyond the elements of the statute, but is not an attempt to commit the jurors to a certain verdict, those questions are proper and are of the type which assist counsel in determining their peremptory challenges.
. For example crimes such as, capital murder, Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03 (a)(8)(murder of an individual under six years of age); indecency with a child, Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11 ; aggravated sexual assault of a child, Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021 (a)(1)(B); injury to a child, Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04 ; abandoning or endangering a child, Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.041 ; inter alia, contain a child victim as an element of the offense.