Jose Barbontin Salas v. State
13-15-00070-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 6, 2015Background
- Appellant Jose Barbontin Salas was tried in DeWitt County for evading arrest or detention with a vehicle and alleged as a habitual felon; a jury convicted him and assessed life imprisonment.
- During voir dire the prosecutor asked venire members whether they could "consider" or "assess" the maximum punishment; defense objected that these were improper commitment questions.
- In closing the prosecutor described the jury as the "conscience of the community" and urged them to perform their civic duty; defense objected to argument about community desires.
- A state witness (Deputy Bowen) testified that Salas said he ran because he was on parole and did not want to return to jail; defense objected and the court sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard the parole remark.
- The State contends: (1) voir dire questions were proper (not binding commitments); (2) the closing was a permissible plea for law enforcement; and (3) any reference to parole was either admissible as motive or cured by the court's instruction and thus harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor's voir dire questions were improper commitment questions | Defense: questions asking jurors to "assess" maximum punishment impermissibly sought juror commitments | State: "assess" and "consider" used interchangeably; questions probed ability to consider full range of punishment and were proper | Court approved State’s position; voir dire questions were not reversible error (treated as proper inquiry into ability to consider punishment) |
| Whether prosecutor's closing constituted improper appeal to community passion or an impermissible plea | Defense: argument about "community desires" improperly urged jurors to reflect community will | State: closing was a valid plea for law enforcement; jurors are the "conscience of the community" and may be urged to deter crime | Court approved State’s position; plea for law enforcement is permissible and not error |
| Whether witness testimony that defendant was "on parole" was inadmissible extraneous-act evidence under Rules 403/404(b) | Defense: testimony introduced impermissible extraneous bad-act/character evidence and was highly prejudicial | State: the statement explained motive for flight and was relevant; trial court cured any error by sustaining objection and instructing jury to disregard; any error harmless given strong evidence | Court concluded testimony was either admissible as motive or harmlessly cured by curative instruction; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Allridge v. State, 850 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (commitment-question prohibition and juror binding principles)
- Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (three-prong test for identifying improper commitment questions)
- Barajos v. State, 93 S.W.3d 48 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion review of voir dire rulings)
- Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (permissible areas of jury argument including plea for law enforcement)
- Gosch v. State, 829 S.W.2d 775 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (motive admissibility and 404(b) considerations)
- Alba v. State, 905 S.W.2d 581 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (Rule 403 balancing for prejudicial effect of extraneous-offense evidence)
- Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (factors for Rule 403 balancing)