Spielbauer, Jeremy David, 622 S.W.3d 314

Jeremy Spielbauer faced non-death capital-murder charges; veniremembers completed a pre-voir dire questionnaire that asked whether they had heard about the case and whether they had formed an opinion of guilt or innocence that would influence a verdict.
Six veniremembers answered "yes" to both questions on the questionnaire; the defense sought to challenge them for cause under Tex. Code Crim. P. art. 35.16(a)(10).
The trial court individually questioned the six veniremembers; four confirmed their questionnaire answers and were removed, while two (Freethy and Havlik) recanted their written answers on the stand and denied having formed an opinion.
The trial court denied the defense’s challenges for cause as to Freethy and Havlik; the court of appeals reversed, holding the questionnaires required automatic discharge.
The State sought discretionary review and argued for the first time that questionnaire answers alone cannot support an Article 35.16(a)(10) challenge and that the questionnaire’s wording deviated from the statute.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that questionnaires answered before voir dire, even if they track statutory language, do not by themselves require dismissal under Article 35.16(a)(10); trial courts may interrogate veniremembers about their questionnaire answers.

Issue	Spielbauer's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether answers on a pre-voir dire questionnaire alone require automatic discharge under Art. 35.16(a)(10)	Questionnaire "yes" responses establish a juror concluded guilt/innocence and trigger mandatory discharge without further questioning	Questionnaire responses are extrinsic and cannot by themselves support a for-cause challenge under Art. 35.16(a)(10)	Held: No. Pre-voir dire questionnaires are extrinsic evidence; they do not automatically trigger discharge and the court may question the veniremember.
Whether the State’s new preservation arguments (raised late) are foreclosed by Rochelle v. State	Rochelle bars consideration of issues first raised in a motion for rehearing; State’s late arguments should be foreclosed	Preservation rules are judge-protecting but systemic-preservation doctrines permit consideration; Rochelle has been eroded by later cases	Held: The State’s arguments are not foreclosed; the court may consider them.
Whether deviation in questionnaire wording from statutory language prevents its use to support a challenge for cause	The questionnaire’s substantive questions sufficed to establish the statutory ground	Even if wording tracked statute, questionnaires are susceptible to misinterpretation and cannot substitute for voir dire	Held: Wording variance does not change outcome; questionnaires are vulnerable to misinterpretation and are not a substitute for voir dire.

Spielbauer v. State, 597 S.W.3d 516 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2020) (court of appeals decision reversing trial court on questionnaire issue)
Rochelle v. State, 791 S.W.2d 121 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (preservation rule on appellee arguments raised late)
Gonzales v. State, 3 S.W.3d 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (questionnaires vulnerable to misinterpretation; cannot replace voir dire)
Garza v. State, 7 S.W.3d 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (questionnaires are extrinsic to formal voir dire)
Jernigan v. State, 661 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (challenges for cause may consider voir dire and extrinsic evidence)
Calloway v. State, 743 S.W.2d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (uphold trial court ruling on any applicable legal theory)
Volosen v. State, 227 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (appellate duty to address issues and possible subsidiary theories)
Castanedanieto v. State, 607 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (appellate courts may affirm on alternative legal theories)
Gipson v. State, 383 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (appellate courts must address preservation before reversing)
Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (trial judge best positioned to evaluate veniremember demeanor and responses)