Kenneth Collins v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 299th District Court of Travis County

Collins v. State IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,
AT AUSTIN
NO. 3-90-338-CR
KENNETH COLLINS,

APPELLANT

 
vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

 
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT,
NO. 104,874, HONORABLE JON N. WISSER, JUDGE

PER CURIAM

Appellant was convicted of delivery of cocaine and sentenced to thirty-eight years imprisonment. Texas Controlled Substances Act, Tex. Health & Safety Code 481.112 (Pamph. 1991). In a single point of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in granting the State's challenge for cause to a member of the venire. We will affirm the judgment of conviction.

On voir dire, prospective juror Peacock indicated that her feelings about drugs might influence her ability to arrive at a fair verdict and that she would require the State to prove its case beyond all doubt. The State challenged for cause, and the trial court granted the challenge over the appellant's objection.

Assuming that appellant is correct that the trial court erroneously granted the challenge for cause, appellant has failed to show any harm. See Tex. R. App. P. Ann. 81(b)(2) (Supp. 1991). Harm is shown in the erroneous exclusion of a qualified juror by showing the State exhausted its peremptory challenges. Payton v. State, 572 S.W.2d 677, 680 (Tex. Cr. App. 1978). Appellant has not demonstrated that the State exhausted its peremptory challenges and that the prospective juror Peacock would have served except for the trial court's action.

In determining whether error is harmless under Rule 81(b)(2), we must focus not on the propriety of the outcome of the case, but on the integrity of the process leading to the conviction. Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568, 587 (Tex. Cr. App. 1989); Tex. R. App. P. Ann. 81(b)(2) (Supp. 1991). Factors that should be considered include: (1) the source of the error; (2) the nature of the error; and (3) whether declaring the error harmless would encourage the State to repeat it with impunity. Harris, 790 S.W.2d at 587. Procedurally, we must first isolate the error and all its effects, using the considerations set out above and any other considerations suggested by the facts of the cause, and second ask whether a rational trier of fact might have reached a different result if the error and its effects had not occurred. Harris, 790 S.W.2d at 587-88. We do not focus on the weight of the other evidence of appellant's guilt, but instead focus on whether the error might possibly have prejudiced the jurors' decision-making. In other words, our responsibility is to determine whether the trial was an essentially fair one. Id.

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court's action, even if erroneous, did not affect the fairness of appellant's trial and that a rational trier of fact would have reached the same result if the error and its effects had not occurred. Appellant's point of error is overruled.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

 

[Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Jones and B. A. Smith]

Affirmed

Filed: September 11, 1991

[Do Not Publish]