Howard Larson Wampler, Jr. v. State, 494 S.W.3d 367

Howard Larson Wampler, Jr. was convicted by a jury of indecency with a child by contact (second-degree felony) and sentenced to life under an enhancement.
During the State’s voir dire, the prosecutor asked venire members whether they leaned toward punishment or rehabilitation as goals of the criminal justice system.
Five veniremen answered that question before defense objected; a sixth said he could not answer without hearing the case, and the prosecutor pressed him for an answer.
Defense counsel objected, arguing the question was an impermissible commitment question; the trial court overruled the objection and instructed the State to move on if the venireman had no clear viewpoint.
Wampler appealed, arguing (1) the question was an improper commitment question and (2) it appealed to community prejudice and undermined the presumption of innocence.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Wampler waived the commitment-question complaint by failing to object timely and rejecting the claim of fundamental error based on community prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prosecutor’s question asking veniremen to choose punishment vs. rehabilitation was an improper commitment question	The question forced veniremen to commit to a position and impermissibly restricted their ability to decide issues after hearing evidence	The question was a permissible inquiry into jurors’ general philosophical outlook on the justice system during voir dire	Overruled: waiver for untimely objection; no reversible error because five veniremen answered before objection was made
Whether the question appealed to community prejudice or was fundamental error because rehabilitation was not an option and it undermined presumption of innocence	The question invited prejudice and effectively required guilt to satisfy community sentiment; thus, it was fundamental error not subject to waiver	The question did not subvert presumption of innocence; and absent timely objection the claim is waived	Rejected: court found no authority that such a voir dire question constitutes fundamental error and affirmed conviction

Barajas v. State, 93 S.W.3d 36 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (trial court has wide discretion in controlling voir dire)
Shipley v. State, 790 S.W.2d 604 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (question is proper if it seeks juror views on issues applicable to the case)
Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (defines impermissible commitment question)
Atkins v. State, 951 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (standard of review for voir dire rulings)
Vrba v. State, 151 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004) (litigants given broader latitude to inquire into jurors’ general philosophical outlook)
Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (discussion of voir dire latitude)
Ross v. State, 154 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (timely, specific objection required to preserve voir dire error)
Turner v. State, 805 S.W.2d 423 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (objection timing for preservation of voir dire issues)
Montgomery v. State, 198 S.W.3d 67 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006) (failure to object to venire answer waives complaint on appeal)