Zuniga, Alfonso v. The State of Texas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed November 5, 2012. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-11-00531-CR ALFONSO A. ZUNIGA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F09-62078-P OPINION Before Justices O=Neill, FitzGerald, and Lang-Miers Opinion By Justice Lang-Miers A jury convicted appellant Alfonso A. Zuniga of aggravated sexual assault with a deadly weapon and assessed punishment at life in prison. In one issue on appeal appellant complains that the trial court failed to administer the jury oath. We resolve appellant=s sole issue against him and affirm. Appellant argues that the verdict in this case is void because it was rendered by an unsworn jury. There are two references to the jury oath in the reporter=s record. First, after the conclusion of voir dire on a Wednesday, the trial court told the jury that he would swear them in on the following Monday morning, when the trial was scheduled to begin: Comment [COMMENT1]: Page Number Footer A Included Use Hotkey ` and then EFA to (E)dit (F)ooter (A) Comment [COMMENT2]: Date Printed: Header A included, Use Hotkey ` and then EHA to (E)dit (H)eader (A) Use Hotkey ` and then DHAT to (D)elete (H)eader (A)(T)ext THE COURT: . . . I need to swear you in. THE COURT: Does either side mind if I swear them in Monday morning? [The State]: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So with that said, I=ll let the bailiffs show you where you need to go, and I will swear you in Monday morning. Second, when the proceedings resumed on Monday, the trial court stated that it swore the jury in on the previous Wednesday: [The State]: I think, Judge, that the record should reflect, I believe, on Friday afternoonCI=m not sure if the record reflects this, but I believe that the Court swore in the jury Friday afternoon orC THE COURT: I did. [The State]: Cor Wednesday. THE COURT: Yes. [The State]: So this jury is sworn. . . . Unless it is disputed at trial or the record affirmatively shows to the contrary, we are required to presume that the jury was properly impaneled and sworn. TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(c)(2). Based on the passages quoted above, appellant argues that the record affirmatively shows that no oath was given. We disagree. Although a transcription of the oath is not part of the reporter=s record, the trial court stated on the record that the oath was administered. In addition, the judgment states, AA jury was selected, impaneled, and sworn.@ In this case we are required to presume that the jury was properly impaneled and sworn because the issue was not disputed at trial and the record does not affirmatively show that the jury was not sworn. See id. We resolve appellant=s sole issue against B2B him and affirm. ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 110531F.U05 B3B
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.
