Blanchard, Brant Ray v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 185th District Court of Harris CountyAnnotate this Case
Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed November 23, 2005.
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
BRANT RAY BLANCHARD, Appellant
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 185th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 955,512
C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N
Notwithstanding my concern about the trial court=s limitation of time for completion of voir dire, I am constrained by controlling authority to concur with the majority.
The trial court exercised its discretion after hearing conflicting evidence relative to misconduct by juror number eleven and overruled appellant=s motion for new trial. We must defer to the trial court=s decision to accept or reject any part of the testimony proffered by appellant=s trial counsel. Ford v. State, 129 S.W.3d 541, 547 (Tex. App.CDallas, 2003 pet. ref=d).
I write to express my deep concern about the judicial penchant for time restrictions on voir dire. During oral argument, appellant=s counsel suggested that appellant=s trial attorney was forced to rely on the accuracy and completeness of jurors= answers to the State=s questions because of the trial court=s time constraints. The trial court allowed thirty minutes for each side. It is my considered opinion that a thirty-minute limitation for voir dire effectively precludes defense counsel from fulfilling the requirement to ask specific questions of each juror in order to preserve error for juror misconduct. See Gonzales v. State, 3 S.W.3d 915, 916 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Armstrong v. State, 897 S.W.2d 361, 363B64 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).
/s/ Charles W. Seymore
Judgment rendered and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed November 23, 2005.
Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Edelman, and Seymore. (Hudson, J., majority.)
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).