Jeremy David Spielbauer v. State, 597 S.W.3d 516

Appellant Jeremy Spielbauer was indicted for capital murder (later convicted of the lesser-included offense of murder and sentenced to life plus a fine).
Venire members completed a written questionnaire that asked (1) whether they had heard about the case and (2) whether they had formed an opinion as to guilt or innocence that would influence their verdict; several marked "Yes" to the second question.
Article 35.16(a)(10) requires that a juror who admits an opinion that would influence verdict be discharged "without further interrogation by either party or the court."
Two venire members (Terry Freethy and Joseph Havlik) had answered "Yes" on the questionnaire but, after follow-up oral questioning by the court/prosecutor, each said they had not formed an opinion; the court denied defense challenges for cause to those two.
Defense used peremptory strikes to remove Freethy and Havlik, exhausted all peremptories, requested two additional peremptories which were denied, and was forced to accept two jurors (Stoffle and Cooper) it would have otherwise struck; conviction followed.
The court of appeals held the trial court erred in denying the challenges for cause, found the error preserved and harmful, reversed and remanded; the court did not reach appellant’s ineffective-assistance claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Spielbauer)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying challenges for cause to venire members who answered they had formed an opinion that would influence their verdict	Questionnaire answers triggering article 35.16(a)(10) required discharge without further interrogation; the court nevertheless allowed follow-up and denied challenges for cause	Follow-up questioning showed the venire members could be impartial; a "yes" on the short questionnaire did not automatically disqualify them	The court held the trial court erred in denying the challenges for cause to Freethy and Havlik and that error required reversal and remand
Whether the denial of challenges for cause was preserved and harmful on appeal	Defense repeatedly objected, used peremptories on the challenged venire members, requested additional peremptories which were denied, and identified the objectionable jurors it was forced to accept before jurors were sworn	State argued appellant failed to timely identify which seated jurors he would have struck with extra peremptories and thus forfeited the complaint	The court found preservation satisfied under Johnson/Buntion framework, harm shown because defense used peremptories and was denied additional strikes, and reversed the conviction

Johnson v. State, 43 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (establishes preservation/harm framework and that denial of a proper challenge for cause is reversible error when defendant is forced to use peremptories and accepts objectionable jurors)
Buntion v. State, 482 S.W.3d 58 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (explains preservation steps and harm analysis for denied challenges for cause)
Comeaux v. State, 445 S.W.3d 745 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (harm shown when defendant is forced to use a peremptory on a juror who should have been excused)
Wolfe v. State, 178 S.W.2d 274 (Tex. Crim. 1944) (older precedent demonstrating harm where peremptories were expended on jurors who should have been excused)
McBean v. State, 167 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004) (case the State relied on; court here distinguished its facts and declined to adopt a stricter timing rule)
Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (preservation requires informing the trial judge of the complaint in time to correct it)