Unkart, Rodney Gale
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 818
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant Rodney Unkart was convicted of two counts of manufacture/possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and sentenced to twelve years and $10,000 fines on each count.
- Voir dire included the trial judge stating a personal wish to testify and admonishing jurors not to infer guilt from absence of testimony; defense did not timely object or request a mistrial or instruction to disregard.
- Defense later moved for mistrial, briefing that he did not seek a disregard instruction; motion denied.
- Appellant argued on appeal that the voir dire comments violated presumption of innocence and were fundamental error under Blue.
- The court of appeals agreed that the comments were fundamental error and reversed; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voir dire comments were fundamental error under Blue v. State | Unkart | Unkart | No fundamental error; not preserved; cure by instructions |
| Whether mistrial was required or preservation failed due to lack of disregard instruction | State | Unkart | Mistrial not required; error cured; objection late and failure to request disregard instruction forfeits relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Blue v. State, 41 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (plurality: improper judicial comments may be reversible error but not automatic in all contexts)
- Jasper v. State, 61 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (preservation of error; use as precedential guidance)
- Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (optional vs mandatory corrections; preservation concepts)
- Young v. State, 137 S.W.3d 65 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (standard for preserving trial-error complaints)
- Contreras v. State, 312 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (discerning majority holding in fractured decisions)
- Bowen v. State, 374 S.W.3d 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (methodology for extracting holding from fractured decisions)
- Haynes v. State, 273 S.W.3d 183 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (discusses preserving and discerning holdings in blue-line authorities)
- Carter v. State, 309 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (identifying narrow grounds in fractured decisions)