Davis v. State
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 416
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Christopher Connley Davis was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to ten years' confinement; the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed.
- During voir dire, defense asked jurors what factors are important in sentencing for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon; the trial court interrupted, calling the question a commitment question.
- Davis sought review arguing the Court of Appeals erred in treating the question as an improper commitment question.
- The issue concerns whether asking about factors that are important to sentencing constitutes an impermissible commitment question under Texas law.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reverses the Court of Appeals and remands for further consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the voir dire question was a commitment question | Davis argues it was not a commitment question | State argued the question was a commitment question | The question is not a commitment question; Court remands for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (discusses commitment questions and permissible scope of voir dire)
- Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (distinguishes general philosophy questions from commitment questions)
- Barajas v. State, 93 S.W.3d 36 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (allows trial courts to require precise, non-ambiguous questions)
- Vrba v. State, 151 S.W.3d 676 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (recognizes broader latitude for certain questions about general outlook)
- Lydia v. State, 109 S.W.3d 495 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (acknowledges background/philosophical inquiries may be allowed)
- Sanchez v. State, 165 S.W.3d 707 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (discusses scope of voir dire regarding sentencing)