Cardenas v. State
2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1391
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2010Background
- Cardenas was charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and one count of indecency with a child.
- During voir dire, defense asked jurors if they could consider a minimum punishment of five years with probation; over fifty said they could not.
- The trial judge denied most challenges for cause based on jurors' inability to consider the full range of punishment.
- Defense argued denial of challenges for cause violated rights to an impartial jury; jury was seated and he was convicted.
- Court of Appeals reversed, finding the blanket question preserved error and was a proper commitment question under Standefer.
- State reviewed; Supreme Court reversed/affirmed in part, concluding the blanket question did preserve error and that the question was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of error after blanket question | Cardenas preserved error via voir dire and challenges for cause. | Prompted by defense question, error preserved; no need for follow-up. | Error properly preserved. |
| Validity of defense commitment question | Question properly committed jurors to consider minimum punishment under law. | Question contained too many facts; improper commitment under Standefer. | Question was proper to elicit consideration of minimum punishment. |
| Denial of challenges for cause to jurors who cannot consider full range | Jurors' stated inability warranted challenges for cause. | The panel could be rehabilitated; denial was within discretion. | Abuse of discretion; denial was improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (requires explicit understanding of law to preserve error)
- Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (commitment questions must align with statute and law)
- Barajas v. State, 93 S.W.3d 36 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (probation questions cannot hinge on facts beyond indictment)
- Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (improper to base commitment on case-specific facts)
- Atkins v. State, 951 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (improper to frame commitment around evidentiary facts)
- Williams v. State, 773 S.W.2d 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (bias shown by inability to consider probation is fundamental)
- Pierce v. State, 696 S.W.2d 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (rehabilitation required if juror vacillates on law)
- Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (rehabilitation preferred when juror vacillates on following law)
- Jordan v. State, 635 S.W.2d 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (reversible error to deny challenge against probation in certain contexts)