Audia v. Hannold, 328 S.W.3d 661

Audia filed a personal-injury suit against Hannolds for a ladder-fall while repairing a cathedral ceiling.
Audia proceeded pro se after counsel withdrew, and the parties agreed to a six-person jury trial.
The jury found all parties negligent, with Audia 80% at fault.
Audia moved for a new trial arguing only six jurors violated Article V, §13 of the Texas Constitution and nine jurors were required.
The trial court denied the motion after a hearing at which Audia did not appear and noted the six-person panel option was offered because Audia was pro se.
On appeal, Audia challenged the trial court’s six-person empanelment as unconstitutional; the court held the issue was not preserved for review and affirmed the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation of constitutional objection	Audia contends the twelve-jury requirement is non-waivable and preserved error.	Hannolds argues the objection was not timely raised and thus not preserved.	Complaint not preserved; affirmed judgment.
Waiver of the twelve-jury right in district court	Audia maintained waiver could not occur due to pro se status and lack of informed consent.	Hannolds argued the waiver is valid and supported by the record.	Waiver valid; not preserved as appeal issue.
Authority to empanel six jurors in civil district court	Texas Constitution Article V, §13 requires twelve jurors; no exception applies.	Statutory provision allows the parties to agree to proceed with six jurors (Gov't Code §62.201).	Court did not reach merits; issue not preserved for review.

In re A.B.P., 291 S.W.3d 91 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009) (preservation requirement for constitutional challenges observed)
Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. 1978) (pro se litigants held to same procedural standards as counsel)
In re J.P., 196 S.W.3d 434 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006) (waiver analysis and pro se considerations reaffirmed)