Farrain Joseph Comeaux A/K/A Farrain J. Comeaux v. State, 413 S.W.3d 176

Background

Comeaux was convicted of burglary of a habitation by a jury in Jefferson County, Texas; the State’s proofs showed entry without consent intending to commit theft.
PJ23 indicated substantial bias against Comeaux; defense moved to strike for cause, which the trial court denied.
Comeaux exhausted his ten peremptory challenges and sought an extra strike; the court denied the request.
A second juror (PJ27) ultimately seated as the twelfth juror after multiple strikes.
The State introduced evidence of an attempted burglary at a nearby garage the same evening; J.S. and B.P. identified Comeaux by clothing and other non-facial cues.
Comeaux appealed, challenging juror for-cause ruling, opening statement, sufficiency of evidence, identification procedure, and speedy-trial denial, all rejected by the appellate court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Juror for-cause dismissal abuse of discretion	Comeaux argues PJ23 was biased and should have been excused.	State contends PJ23 could be fair and follow the law.	Abuse of discretion; PJ23 bias required denial of for-cause strike.
Opening statement mentioning extraneous crime	Prosecutor improperly referenced extraneous burglary.	Evidence of extraneous burglary later admitted; opening remark permissible.	Not error; opening statement allowed when related evidence was admitted.
Sufficiency of evidence to support attempted burglary identity	Identity lacked due to facial unreliability of witnesses.	Evidence, including clothing and location, supports identity beyond reasonable doubt.	Sufficient evidence; rational jury could find guilt.
Suggestiveness of showup identification	Showup procedure tainted J.S. and influenced identification.	Showup was necessary and not impermissibly suggestive; identification credible.	Showup not unnecessarily or impermissibly suggestive; admissible.
Speedy trial violation	Delay of approximately two years prejudicial to Comeaux.	Delays due to docket and multiple resets; no bad faith established.	No violation; Barker factors weigh against prejudicial delay.

Key Cases Cited

Sadler v. State, 977 S.W.2d 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (bias against the law can support a challenge for cause)
Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (deference to trial judge on voir dire; abuse of discretion standard)
Feldman v. State, 71 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (test for bias precludes juror from following law)
Sosa v. State, 769 S.W.2d 909 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (predecessor rule on for-cause reversal when bias shown and not cured)
Vaughn v. State, 833 S.W.2d 180 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992) (unequivocal inability to be fair supports reversal for cause)
Banks v. State, 643 S.W.2d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (opening statements may reference admitted evidence)
Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S.Ct. 716 (U.S. 2012) (showups can be permissible; fallibility of eyewitness not per se due process issue)
Jackson v. State, 628 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (burden to show tainted identification pretrial procedure)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (effective standard for reviewing identity/evidence sufficiency)
Lane v. State, 933 S.W.2d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (extraneous-offense evidence admissible to show identity if sufficiently similar)
Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (consciousness of guilt evidence may be admissible)
Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (evidence of implausible police explanations as probative)
Shaw v. State, 117 S.W.3d 883 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (speedy trial standard timeline guidance)
Munoz, 991 S.W.2d 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) ( Barker factor framework for speedy trial)
Zamorano v. State, 84 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (balancing Barker factors; presumptively prejudicial delays)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1982) (presumptively prejudicial delay standard)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four-factor speedy-trial balancing test)