Stairhime v. Texas (original by judge yeary)
Annotate this CaseAppellant was indicted for murder. The jury ultimately convicted assessed his punishment at forty-three years’ confinement in the penitentiary. He raised four points of error on appeal, all of which the court of appeals rejected. In his fourth point of error, Appellant argued that the trial court erred during voir dire by refusing to allow him to propound a specific question in a specific way to the venire. His counsel asked essentially the same question three times. Each time, the State objected to the “form” of the question as Appellant’s counsel had proposed to ask it. Each time the court sustained the State’s objection. Appellant argued on direct appeal that he was prevented from asking a proper question to the venire during jury selection. The court of appeals refused to address the merits of his complaint, however, holding that Appellant later waived any error he might have earlier preserved. When the names of the twelve jurors were called out and the jury was empaneled, the trial court immediately asked whether either party had “an objection to the panel or as to the jury as selected[.]” Appellant answered, “No, Your Honor.” The court of appeals agreed with the State that, by his response, Appellant waived “any complaints about the [conduct] of voir dire[.]” The Court of Criminal Appeals granted Appellant’s petition for discretionary review to examine whether the court of appeals correctly regarded Appellant’s answer to constitute a waiver of his appellate complaint that he had been denied the opportunity to pose a proper question. After review of the record, the Court held that a reply of “None” or “No, Your Honor,” to the question of whether there is an objection to “the seating of the jury,” or “to the panel,” or “to the jury as selected” at the conclusion of jury selection does not constitute a waiver of any previously preserved claim of error during the voir dire proceedings. The Court overruled "Harrison v. Texas," (333 S.W.3d 810 (Tex. App. 2010)) to the extent that it conflicted with this holding. The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and the case for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.