Fuller v. State
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 501
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Fuller was indicted for capital murder; death penalty not sought, so no individual voir dire.
- On voir dire morning, defense sought to ask venire whether they understand that beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden, and to explain burdens of proof comparatively.
- The trial court denied the request; defense objected; objection overruled.
- Fuller did not question venire during voir dire but appealed the ruling after trial.
- The court of appeals rejected the complaint; Fuller sought discretionary review.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held the trial court abused its discretion, reversed the court of appeals, and remanded for harm analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the trial court's denial of the voir dire request an abuse of discretion? | Fuller argues the request sought to test jurors' understanding of reasonable doubt. | State contends no abuse given historical limits on voir dire inquiries. | Yes, abuse; reverse and remand for harm analysis. |
| Is inquiry into jurors' understanding of reasonable doubt a proper voir dire question? | Fuller cites Woolridge to test whether proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard. | State relies on Paulson/Geesa lineage to avoid such definitional inquiries. | Yes, proper to inquire into understanding of reasonable doubt. |
| Does the case law permit contrasting reasonable doubt with other standards during voir dire? | Appellant seeks comparative explanation to reveal juror views relevant to challenges for cause. | Court had adopted no-definition approach post-Paulson. | Yes, permissible to contrast standards to gauge juror understanding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woolridge v. State, 827 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (renown for reasonable doubt inquiry; allowed questioning about understanding of standard)
- Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (defined reasonable doubt; later rejected in Paulson)
- Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (abandoned Geesa definition; no definitional instruction to jury)
- Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (voir dire discretion; proper/abusive depending on scope of inquiry)
- Smith v. State, 703 S.W.2d 641 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (allows limits on voir dire to avoid broad fishing expeditions)