# Johnson v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · October 7, 1998 · 982 S.W.2d 403

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9776139

## Case

- **Full name:** Samuel Lovert JOHNSON, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** October 7, 1998
- **Citations:** 982 S.W.2d 403; 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 131; 1998 WL 692441
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Womack
- **Judges:** Mansfield, Baird, Meyers, Keller, Price, Holland, McCormick, Womack, Overstreet
- **Cited by:** 79 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/9776139

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the trial court's improper denial of defendant's challenge for cause under Art. 35.16(c)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was subject to a harmless error analysis under Rule 44.2(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
- holding trial court abused its discretion in denying challenge for cause to two prospective jurors who “stated unequivocally” they could not consider assessing the applicable minimum legal punishment
- holding that the tidal court erred by erroneously denying the appellant’s two challenges for cause
- holding that the trial court erred by erroneously denying the appellant's two challenges for cause
- stating in criminal trials, both defendant and State have right to have jurors who believe in full range of punishment

## Opinion text

WOMACK, Judge,
dissenting.
I think the proper analysis is the one Judge Keller calls the second formulation of the “holistic approach,” ante at 408 (slip op. at 2). All a juror need be able to do is to be open to assessing a minimum punishment for some form of aggravated robbery, and a maximum punishment for some form of aggravated robbery. This I believe to be consistent with the wide ranges of punishment attached to offenses in the Penal Code, and to the legislative directive that the Code be *415 construed “to prescribe penalties that are proportionate to the seriousness of offenses and that permit recognition of differences in rehabilitation possibilities among individual offenders.” Penal Code § 1.02(3). I would affirm the judgment below.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9776139. Public record. Not legal advice.