Wilbert Walker v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 4424

Appellant Wilbert Walker was indicted for possession of cocaine and alleged as an habitual offender; a jury convicted him and assessed 75 years’ imprisonment.
During voir dire a potential juror (juror #4) stated she remembered Walker from about 20 years earlier and that he had been "in and out, you know, locked up," and had traded with her business; the court did not admonish the panel at that time.
The prosecutor and defense counsel later conducted voir dire discussing burden of proof, presumption of innocence, and punishment; juror #4 was later excused for cause after challenges.
At the punishment phase the State introduced evidence of an extraneous cocaine offense; defense objected only on chain-of-custody/authentication grounds (not on burden-of-proof for extraneous offenses).
Walker moved to suppress evidence from a traffic stop; officer video showed a stop for unlit taillights, a pat-down with Walker’s apparent consent, and Walker handing over a cigarette box that the officer then inspected and found contraband. The trial court found the stop lawful and consent voluntary.

Issue	Walker's Argument	State's/Trial Court's Argument	Held
1. Whether the venire should be quashed after juror #4’s comment about prior incarceration	Juror’s comment exposed the entire panel to Walker’s criminal history, denying an impartial jury	The comment was remote, juror #4 was excused, and no harm shown to the panel	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; Walker failed Callins harm showing
2. Whether admission of cocaine from an extraneous offense at punishment was error	Evidence of extraneous offense was improperly admitted because State did not meet burden of proof	Defense failed to preserve complaint—objected only to chain of custody/authentication, not burden-of-proof	Court affirmed: issue forfeited for appeal under preservation rules
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress the evidence from the traffic stop	Stop/search were constitutionally unreasonable; consent was involuntary	Stop lawful for traffic violation; consent to pat-down and inspection of cigarette box was voluntary	Court affirmed: trial court’s voluntariness finding was not clearly erroneous
4. Whether admitting defense exhibit containing Walker’s criminal history during guilt phase was error	Inclusion of criminal history prejudiced guilt-innocence phase	Defense introduced the exhibit without limiting instruction or redaction, and did not request limitation timely	Court affirmed: failure to request limiting instruction at first opportunity waived complaint

Mendoza v. State, 552 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard for reviewing denial of venire-quash motion)
Callins v. State, 780 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. Crim. App.) (harm showing required when panel exposed to prejudicial remark)
Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 (U.S.) (no presumption of prejudice from juror exposure; jurors need not be totally ignorant)
Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478 (U.S.) (presumption of innocence is fundamental)
Meekins v. State, 340 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard for voluntariness of consent to search)
Valtierra v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. Crim. App.) (state must prove voluntariness of consent by clear and convincing evidence)
Schmutz v. State, 440 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. Crim. App.) (structural error doctrine and its narrow scope)
Mozon v. State, 991 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. Crim. App.) (abuse-of-discretion review for admission of evidence)
Hammock v. State, 46 S.W.3d 889 (Tex. Crim. App.) (requirement to request limiting instruction at first opportunity)