In the Matter of A.R.--Appeal from 289th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-00-00040-CV
In the Matter of A.R.
From the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 99-JUV-2510B
Honorable Carmen Kelsey, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Sitting: Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Alma L. L pez, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 17, 2001

AFFIRMED

Appellant A.R was charged with the delinquent conduct of aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child. A.R. was tried with his brother, J.O., a co-defendant, before a jury, and the jury found A.R. engaged in delinquent conduct as charged. The trial judge subsequently committed A.R. to the Texas Youth Commission. In this appeal, A.R. contends he is entitled to a new adjudication hearing because one of the jurors for his trial was disqualified under section 62.102 of the government code.

Because we addressed the issue in this case in an opinion disposing of J.O.'s identical claim, we affirm the trial court's judgment in this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.

A.R. complains a juror served in his adjudication who would have been disqualified because he was not a citizen of the United States. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 62.102 (Vernon 1998) (providing "[a] person is disqualified to serve as a petit juror unless he: . . . is a citizen of this state and of the county in which he is to serve as a juror.").

We found J.O. waived his complaint about the non-citizen's service on the jury. See In re J.O., 04-00-00038-CV, slip op. at 3-4, 2000 WL 1879006, at *2 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Dec. 29, 2000 n.p.h.). J.O. neither challenged the juror for cause, nor raised disqualification in a motion for new trial. See Id. A.R. similarly failed to preserve the alleged error by a timely objection and by failing to examine the juror on his qualifications during voir dire. See id.; Mercy Hosp. of Laredo v. Rios, 776 S.W.2d 626, 628 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1989, writ denied). A.R. also argues the presence of a disqualified juror constitutes a constitutional flaw. Juror qualifications, however, are set forth in the government code, not the constitution. A.R. has failed to show any harm or prejudice which is required to warrant reversal. A.R.'s single appellate issue is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Do Not Publish