Stairhime, Ryan Matthew
2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 758
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- Appellant Ryan Stairhime was convicted of murder and appealed, arguing the trial court erred by sustaining the State’s objections to the form of defense counsel’s voir dire questions about a defendant’s right not to testify.
- Defense counsel sought to ask each veniremember whether they would treat the defendant’s silence as evidence of guilt; the trial court repeatedly sustained the State’s objections to the question’s form.
- Several prospective jurors admitted they would use a defendant’s failure to testify as evidence; those veniremembers were struck for cause or by peremptory challenge, and both parties completed strike exercises.
- After the twelve jurors were seated the trial court asked if either side objected “to the panel or as to the jury as selected”; defense counsel replied, “No, Your Honor.”
- The court of appeals held that this “no objection” response waived appellate review of the preserved voir dire complaint and relied on Harrison v. State. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted review.
- The CCA reversed the court of appeals, holding that a generic “no” to an inquiry about seating the jury does not, in context, constitute waiver of previously preserved voir dire error; Harrison was overruled insofar as it conflicts with this holding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a counsel’s affirmative "no objection" when asked about objection "to the panel" or "to the jury as selected" at the end of voir dire waives an earlier-preserved claim that the court improperly restricted defense voir dire questions | Stairhime: The reply referred only to seating/strike execution and did not indicate intent to abandon preserved voir dire objections | State: A later on-the-record "no objection" forfeits earlier preserved error; the court of appeals relied on Harrison and prior waiver precedents | The CCA held such a generic "no" in this context does not waive previously preserved voir dire claims; apply Thomas’s context-dependent rule and overrule Harrison to the extent of conflict |
Key Cases Cited
- Swain v. State, 181 S.W.3d 359 (Tex. Crim. App.) (discusses waiver by later on-the-record "no objection")
- Moraguez v. State, 701 S.W.2d 902 (Tex. Crim. App.) (addresses later statement of no objection as waiver of earlier-preserved error)
- Thomas v. State, 408 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. Crim. App.) (adopts context-dependent approach: a later "no objection" forfeits earlier error only when record shows waiver was intended or understood)
- Harrison v. State, 333 S.W.3d 810 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (court of appeals decision holding a "no objection" to seating waives voir dire complaints; overruled insofar as inconsistent with this opinion)