in the Matter of A v. a Juvenile
11-16-00078-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 8, 2017Background
- Juvenile A.V. pleaded true to allegations of organized criminal activity and aggravated robbery after grand jury approval; adjudicated delinquent and proceeded to a disposition hearing.
- A jury found A.V. needed rehabilitation or that disposition was required to protect A.V. or the public and sentenced him to commitment to TJJD with a possible transfer to TDCJ for up to 30 years.
- At disposition, A.V. offered a psychiatrist’s letter (court-appointed expert) through the probation officer; the trial court excluded it as hearsay.
- During jury selection A.V. challenged Veniremember No. 30 for cause after she described prior victimization and equivocated about following the law regarding probation. The trial court denied the challenge.
- A.V. raised a Batson challenge, alleging the State used peremptory strikes against three Hispanic veniremembers; the State offered race-neutral reasons for each strike.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, overruling all three issues related to disposition (exclusion of exhibit, challenge for cause, Batson claim).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of psychiatrist’s letter | The letter is an expert report under Fam. Code §54.04(b); hearsay rule does not apply. | The State objected as hearsay; trial court excluded it. | Overruled — A.V. failed to preserve error by not asserting §54.04(b) or a hearsay exception at trial. |
| Challenge for cause to Veniremember No. 30 | Veniremember was biased due to prior victimization and could not be impartial. | Veniremember’s answers showed bias only against the crime and vacillation; she could follow the law. | Overruled — trial court did not abuse discretion; deference given to judge’s assessment of demeanor and vacillating answers. |
| Batson challenge to peremptory strikes | State struck three (potentially) Hispanic jurors on racial grounds. | State provided race-neutral reasons (relative in prison; conflicting answers/attitude toward culpability; disinterest/nonparticipation). | Overruled — court found the State’s explanations race-neutral and A.V. failed to show pretext; ruling not clearly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibition on race-based peremptory strikes)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (three-step Batson framework)
- Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173 (preservation requirement to explain admissibility to trial court)
- Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841 (must specify hearsay exception at trial to preserve complaint)
- Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274 (deference to trial court on challenge for cause; burden on proponent)
- Johnson v. State, 68 S.W.3d 644 (when prosecutor gives reasons, skip prima facie step; evaluate race-neutrality)
- Yarborough v. State, 947 S.W.2d 892 (examples of race-neutral reasons for strikes)