# Gonzales v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · June 9, 1999 · 994 S.W.2d 170

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9776384

## Case

- **Full name:** Antonio GONZALES, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 9, 1999
- **Citations:** 994 S.W.2d 170; 1999 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 75; 1999 WL 371581
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Meyers
- **Judges:** Mansfield, McCormick, Keller, Holland, Womack, Keasler, Meyers, Price, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 118 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/9776384

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that trial court’s impermissible exclusion of proper question during voir dire is subject to harmless-error analysis
- finding that the Texarkana Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the error is incapable of analysis for harm

## Opinion text

MEYERS, J.,
delivered this concurring opinion.
Since promulgation of the new harmless error rule, Tex.R.App. PRoc. 44.2, we have issued just one opinion analyzing voir dire error thereunder. Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). That case involved the erroneous removal of a prospective juror for cause. Assessing harm and concluding the defendant’s “substantial rights” were not violated, the Court reasoned:
[A] defendant has no right that any particular individual serve on the jury. The defendant’s only substantial right is that the jurors who do serve be quali-ned. The defendant’s rights go to those who serve, not to those who are excluded.
Id. at 393 . The instant case involves the denial of a proper question. The determinative question for the Court of Appeals on remand is whether the “substantial right” at issue in Jones (essentially, the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury) is different from the “substantial right” at issue in the context here. With these comments, I concur in the judgment of the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9776384. Public record. Not legal advice.