Easley, Damian Demitrius
424 S.W.3d 535
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Judge prohibited Easley's counsel from comparing different legal burdens of proof to beyond-a-reasonable-doubt during voir dire
- Easley was tried for family-violence assault and convicted, receiving 20 years
- Court of Appeals held the judge's ruling was erroneous but harmless under a non-constitutional harm standard
- Easley petitioned for discretionary review to challenge the harm standard applied
- This Court overruled Plair and held the error is non-constitutional and subject to Rule 44.2(b) harm analysis
- Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment finding the error harmless and non-constitutional
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the voir dire error is constitutional per se | Easley argues error is constitutional per se | State argues error is non-constitutional | Error not per se constitutional; harm analyzed under Rule 44.2(b) |
| What harm standard applies to the voir dire error | Rule 44.2(b) harm analysis applies | No special treatment; standard harms vary | Rule 44.2(b) harm analysis applies and is satisfied |
| Whether Plair is overruled for voir dire rights | Plair overruled; voir dire rights broader | Overruled only to extent of constitutional per se view | Plair overruled to the extent it held per se constitutional error; not all voir dire limits are constitutional |
| Whether the evidence supports harmlessness despite the error | Cumulative record shows error harmless | Error could be harmful; reversals warranted | Harm analysis supports harmlessness given substantial evidence and voir dire context |
Key Cases Cited
- Fuller v. State, 363 S.W.3d 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (abuse of discretion in voir dire; harm analysis remand)
- Rich v. State, 160 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (harm analysis for erroneous denial of proper voir dire questions)
- Jones v. State, 223 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (constitutional dimension of certain voir dire errors; guide for harm)
- Plair v. State, 279 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. Crim. App. 1925) (right to counsel includes individual voir dire questioning; overruled here)
- Carlis v. State, 51 S.W.2d 729 (Tex. Crim. App. 1932) (individual voir dire questioning to aid in peremptory challenges; overruled)
- George Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (distinguishes constitutional vs. non-constitutional errors in voir dire)
- Mosely v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (non-constitutional treatment of improper jury argument)
- Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (non-constitutional treatment of improper jury argument)
- Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (review of evidentiary rule errors under due process considerations)
- Gray v. State, 233 S.W.3d 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (context of Rule 44.2(b) applications)
- Womack, dissent in Jones, Jones, 223 S.W.3d at 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (dissent on constitutional dimension of voir dire questioning)