Gonzales v. State
994 S.W.2d 170
Tex. Crim. App.
1999
Check Treatment

*1 Paul, Austin, Atty., Matthew State’s GONZALES, Appellant, State. Antonio OPINION

The STATE Texas. MANSFIELD, J., delivered the No. 1411-98. Court, P.J., McCORMICK, in Criminal of Texas. KELLER, HOLLAND, WOMACK, KEASLER, J.J., joined. 9, 1999. June presents following ques- This case tion: Is a trial court’s erroneous question during jury analysis? subject to harmless error Facts Relevant County grand jury A Jefferson indicted aggravated on counts: as- two deadly possession weapon sault and Tex. penal institution. See Pen.Code charges §§ 46.10. These related appellant, back to an incident which Department inmate in the of Crimi- Texas Division, attacked nal Justice-Institutional of a disposable a cell-mate with the blade razor. began April

Trial on charges particular episodes Two during disposition are relevant this cause. during jury The first occurred voir dire as attempted counsel query defense on the prospective members specific defense of particular this line court refused to allow only general questioning, permitting broader issue of self- questions objected. defense. Counsel trial, guilt/innocence stage At the dur- Martin, ing cross examination Kenneth case, victim counsel the fact that Martin was incar- addressed attempted to delve cerated murder the details this homicide. The trial into that, objection court sustained State’s relevant, it prior was while this misconduct know of to let was mis- the “circumstances” behind Appellant’s protested counsel conduct. evidence, Foreman, Huntsville, it ap- claiming K. the exclusion of this Sandra necessary to establish pellant. was

171 Analysis excep- A bill of the defense to proof and offer of were tendered tions pe granted Court the State’s This perfect appeal. the issue for discretionary review to address tition found on both ultimately guilty ex judge’s trial counts, court him and the trial sentenced proper question during clusion imprisonment. forty years to subject to a harmless error voir dire is analysis.3 appeal, appellant presented On three is- point can no Resolution of this (1) sues for consideration: Did the trial Nun- longer by resorting be determined to in refusing court err to allow him the but, instead, fio, by reviewing this Court’s opportunity jury panel to voir dire the State, 947 recent decision Cain v. more (2) necessity? the defense of Did the trial Cain, In (Tex.Crim.App.1997). in excluding allegedly court err evidence broad mandate that overruled we issued a necessity relevant to establish the defense? that, “except and held several (8) Did the court commit revers- constitutional errors la for certain federal when it improperly ible error commented by Supreme beled the United States Court representation on defense counsel’s in the ‘structural,’ 1 categorically no error ... as presence jury? analysis.” immune a harmless error [from] Court of found it Sixth right pose has held that the Court issue, necessary only address first examina proper questions during voir dire whether the trial court abused its discre tion included within the to counsel by restricting scope tion of voir dire. I, 10, § Article of the Texas under Consti (Tex. State, Gonzales v. 972 S.W.2d 877 102, State, v. 941 tution. Howard S.W.2d 1998). App. After However, (Tex.Crim.App.1996). 108 - Texarkana occur, an abuse of discretion did the court Supreme has never United States Court relied on this decision in Court’s erroneously restricting proper held that State, (Tex.Crim. v. 808 S.W.2d 482 questions upon jury voir dire is structural Nunfio App.1991), variety hold that this of er nature.4 error of a federal constitutional incapable undergoing any Therefore, err, ror was court although the trial did State, analysis.2 Gonzales v. 972 appellate obligated court was to con appel 880. The court of thorough analysis reversed duct a to determine the lant’s by conviction and remanded the case for extent of harm caused this error before reversing recognize a new trial. the conviction. We very purposes 1. This third issue found structural errors in a is immaterial U.S., appeal. of this of cases. v. 520 limited class Johnson 461, 1544, 1549, 137 L.Ed.2d U.S. 117 S.Ct. specifically 2. In this Court held that (1997). Wainwright, 372 718 See Gideon v. proper question "error in the denial of a 792, 335, (1963) S.Ct. 9 L.Ed.2d 799 U.S. 83 prevents intelligent per- exercise of one’s counsel); (a deprivation right to total emptory challenges constitutes an abuse of Ohio, 510, 437, Turney 47 S.Ct. v. 273 U.S. 71 subject discretion and is not to a harm (1927) (lack L.Ed. of an 749 State, v. 808 S.W.2d at sis....’’ Nunfio 254, Vasquez Hillery, judge); v. 474 U.S. 106 617, (1986) (unlawful S.Ct. 88 L.Ed.2d 598 challenge 3. The State does not the court race); grand jurors appeals’ abuse of defendant’s decision that trial court did 168, its discretion. Wiggins, U.S. 104 S.Ct. McKaskle v. 465 944, (1984) (the right to self- 79 L.Ed.2d 122 error, explained 4. "Structural” as Arizona trial); Georgia, 467 representation at Waller v. Fulminante, affecting the v. is a "defect 39, 2210, (1984) 81 L.Ed.2d 31 U.S. 104 S.Ct. proceeds, within which the trial framework (the trial); public v. Louisi- to a Sullivan simply pro- rather than an error in the trial 2078, ana, 124 U.S. 113 S.Ct. 508 Fulminante, cess itself.” 279, v. 499 U.S. Arizona (1993) (erroneous reasonable- L.Ed.2d 182 1246, 1265, S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 302 113 jury). doubt instruction to (1991). Supreme The United States prop- rights go to those may defy ned. serve, not to are those who exclud- er be insufficient analysis. ed. conduct fact, be harmless some never Id. at 393. The instant case involves the or will rarely be harmless. Cain proper question. The determi- denial *3 However, “appellate at 264. question native the Court not automatically courts should foreclose on remand whether the “substantial the test application harmless error (essentially, at issue in right” Jones the To categories to certain error.” Ibid. and defendant’s to a fair past the cases this deci- extent contradict jury) is different from the “substantial sion, they are overruled. See Nunfio at here. With right” issue the context (and cited S.W.2d at 485 comments, judgment I concur the therein). the Court. conclusion, judgment we the vacate J., PRICE, dissenting a delivered the cause appeals court of remand JOHNSON, joined. in which opinion J. a to whether proper determination as fruitless respectfully I dissent. It is therefore, and, was harmful suf- error cause remand this to the court appellant’s ficient cause for reversal of because analysis for a harmless error no 44.2. In Tex.R.App. conviction. See Pro. finding harm can be ex- meaningful proper analysis, order to conduct harm quantified, proved regarding a plained, or the sec- court of shall address prohibited question. voir dire wrongfully point appellant’s original ond from of error majority that recog- “[w]e contends is, appeal, trial court that may defy of error nize erroneously proffered excluded the evi- be insuffi- which averred established dence harm cient to conduct and “some never be harm- sis” is a We believe resolution of this issue logic will be rarely less or harmless.” factor in whether the determining relevant reasoning seems similar Nunfio: harmful. error here was improperly a trial court circum- when dire, harm a defendant’s voir scribed MEYERS, J., opinion. concurs with because the defendant is denied presumed PRICE, J., opinion, in dissents with an intelligently the chance JOHNSON, J., joined. Nunfio, peremptory See use his strikes. majority opin- J., at 485. But the MEYERS, 808 S.W.2d concurring delivered this opposite and the re- ion overrules opinion. Ante, undoubtedly will now occur. sult promulgation Since the new harmless disagree hypothesis 171. I with the that Tex.R.App. rule, error we have PRoc. equals ability prove harm the lack just analyzing issued one itself, but this seems to the lack of State, 982 thereunder. Jones v. driving force in each of this Court’s be (Tex.Crim.App.1998). That analyses. Cain case involved the erroneous removal reasons, prospective juror Assessing respectfully I foregoing cause. For the “sub- defendant’s dissent. violated, rights” stantial were not

Court reasoned: any defendant no

[A] jury.

particular individual serve on right is substantial quali- be jurors

that the do serve