Mark Fruge v. State, 03-14-00723-CR

Appellant was charged in three Travis County causes with aggravated robbery, aggravated assault on a public servant, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, among others, and was sentenced to life in each case after a jury trial.
The State sought to strike veniremember No. 12 for cause because he would require a certainty of proof beyond beyond a reasonable doubt, which the trial court granted.
Appellant contends the strike violated his right to an impartial jury, but the State argues the veniremember would not follow the law and the error was harmless if any.
Evidence at trial included an extended crime spree: Fallas Discount robbery, a shootout with officers, a kidnapping, and subsequent flight leading to arrest; Harris’s aggravated kidnapping was introduced as extraneous offense evidence.
The State offered the aggravated kidnapping as same-transaction contextual evidence, or, in any case, as admissible flight/intent evidence, with a Rule 403 balancing showing probative value outweighing prejudice.
Appellant admitted to several charged offenses but denied specific intent for attempted capital murder; the jury acquitted him of that count, and the State argued the evidence still supported other convictions and punishment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Veniremember 12 properly struck for cause?	Samaniego-Krant would not follow beyond a reasonable doubt standard.	The strike infringed on Appellant’s right to an impartial jury.	Yes; harmless error
Was the aggravated kidnapping evidence admissible as same-transaction contextual evidence or proper flight/intent proof?	Evidence linked to the ongoing crime spree was admissible to explain the sequence and intent.	Extraneous act was improperly admitted to show propensity and prejudiced the jury.	Admissible; harmless error

Narvaiz v. State, 840 S.W.2d 415 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (bias toward law on burden of proof permissible for challenge for cause)
Jacobs v. State, 787 S.W.2d 397 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (trial court’s demeanor-based venire determinations afforded deference)
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) (standard for evaluating trial court rulings on peremptory/for-cause challenges)
Chambers v. State, 866 S.W.2d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (deference to trial court’s credibility findings in voir dire)
King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (vacillating venire responses receive deference; impartiality focus)
Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (same-transaction contextual evidence; necessity and probative value)
Alba v. State, 905 S.W.2d 581 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (flight as admissible evidence when extraneous offenses relate to escape)
Pondexter v. State, 942 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (same-transaction rationale for admission of extraneous acts)