Wampler, Howard Larson Jr.
PD-1326-15
| Tex. App. | Oct 8, 2015Background
- Howard Larson Wampler, Jr. was convicted of indecency with a child by contact and one enhancement was found true, with confinement for life imposed.
- The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence before the petition for discretionary review.
- During voir dire, the State asked veniremen whether they favored punishment or rehabilitation “in these kinds of cases,” despite rehabilitation not being an option if convicted.
- Wampler objected to the question as an impermissible commitment question; the trial court overruled the objection and instructed the State to proceed if a venireman lacked a clear viewpoint.
- The question was posed to the entire venire row by row, and the defense later challenged the erroneous line of questioning on appeal.
- The Court of Appeals held the error waived for lack of timely objection and found no fundamental error in allowing the question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the voir dire commitment question was improper | Wampler asserts the question sought commitment to punishment and violated innocence. | The State contends the question sought jurors’ philosophical views on punishment vs. rehabilitation. | Issue preserved waived; no fundamental error. |
| Whether the improper question affected the presumption of innocence | Wampler argues the question impermissibly tainted the entire jury and violated presumption of innocence. | The State contends the question did not affect innocence, and any error was not fundamental. | Court held no fundamental error; appeal denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blue v. State, 41 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (voir dire comments compromising presumption of innocence may be non-preservation requiring no objection)
- Steadman v. State, 360 S.W.3d 499 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (taint from improper voir dire can require new voir dire and new trial)
- Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (commitment questions and voir dire limits)
- Mata v. State, 952 S.W.2d 30 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, 1997) (improper appeal to community prejudice in verdicts)