holding that under article 44.29(c) "voir dire error regarding a subject that a jury would consider only during the punishment phase of trial is `error affecting punishment only' unless the defendant produces evidence showing that the error necessarily produced a jury biased against the defendant on the issue of guilt"
How later courts described this case
- holding that under article 44.29(c) "voir dire error regarding a subject that a jury would consider only during the punishment phase of trial is `error affecting punishment only' unless the defendant produces evidence showing that the error necessarily produced a jury biased against the defendant on the issue of guilt"
- holding that State's erroneously granted challenge for cause was not "error affecting punishment only" under article 44.29(c) because "the erroneous elimination of a venireperson conceivably affects the composition of the jury, which sits at both guilt and punishment
- holding that evidence of assault on prosecutor and defense counsel in courtroom admissible as consciousness of guilt without violating rule 404(b)
- holding attempts to tamper with a witness, and any criminal act designed to reduce the likelihood of prosecution, constitutes evidence of “consciousness of guilt” on the part of the defendant
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MANSFIELD, Judge,
concurring.
I join the well-written and well-reasoned opinion of the Court. While I believe that Garrett v. State, 851 S.W.2d 853 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), was wrongfully decided, it is, unless and until overruled, the law. I agree that the majority’s holding that Garrett error is “error affecting punishment only” is correct in light of the Supreme Court’s holdings in Witherspoon, Bumper, Wainwright, and this Court’s holdings in Cuevas and Jones.