Martin Suarez Juarez v. State
461 S.W.3d 283
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Juarez was charged with assault family violence by choking Morcia, the mother of his child.
- The jury found Juarez guilty and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment.
- Appeal challenges include voir dire, several evidentiary rulings, and the judgment’s stated offense statute.
- The court held the commitment question during voir dire was not improper.
- The trial court’s evidentiary rulings were not abusive as preserved, and the judgment will be modified to reflect the correct statute.
- The correct statute of offense is Tex. Penal Code § 22.01(b)(2)(B); the judgment will be amended accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the voir dire commitment question was improper | Juarez argued the question improperly committed a juror | Juarez’s counsel objected to the commitment nature of the question | Not improper; question valid to test for-cause bias |
| Whether admission of dispatcher comments and victim statements was proper | State permissibly elicited non-hearsay and excited-utterance testimony | Hearsay and preservation concerns invalidated admission | No abuse of discretion; statements fit excited-utterance and were preserved or not properly preserved as argued |
| Whether the officer’s testimony about immigration status was admissible | AIS/immigration-hold testimony was admissible as public-record-like evidence | Hearsay and speculative interpretations were improperly admitted | Admission proper under Rule 803(8); speculation objection not preserved |
| Whether the judgment incorrectly listed the offense statute | Juarez’s conviction statute was §22.01(b)(2)(B) | The judgment erroneously listed §22.02 | Modify judgment to reflect §22.01(b)(2)(B) |
Key Cases Cited
- Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (test for determining improper commitment questions)
- Sanchez v. State, 165 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (limits on indoctrinating venire by commitment questions)
- Delacerda v. State, 425 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (proper challenge for cause when juror requires more evidence than law requires)
- Lee v. State, 206 S.W.3d 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (voir dire for-cause challenges and commitment questions)
- Braxton v. State, 226 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (limitations on improper commitment questions)