Kipp Kenneth Luster v. The State of Texas Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion by chief justice mckeithen)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-15-00281-CR ____________________ KIPP KENNETH LUSTER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 13-16934 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Kipp Kenneth Luster of possession of a controlled substance and assessed a punishment of twenty years in prison. In one appellate issue, Luster complains of the trial court’s decision to grant one of the State’s challenges for cause. During voir dire, potential juror number one stated that she could not give a young man a sentence of ninety-nine years for a drug offense, and she expressed a belief that drug-related offenses are overcharged and the sentences 1 excessive. The trial court granted the State’s challenge for cause to juror one. Luster did not object to the trial court’s ruling. 1 “A party must object to the granting of a challenge for cause before he can complain of that action on appeal.” Ortiz v. State, 93 S.W.3d 79, 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); see Simpson v. State, 119 S.W.3d 262, 267 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (Having failed to object at trial, appellant’s complaints that the trial court erred by sustaining the State’s challenges for cause were not preserved.); see also Ham v. State, 355 S.W.3d 819, 823 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, pet. ref’d) (“Improper dismissal for cause requires objection.”). Because Luster failed to object when the trial court granted the State’s challenge for cause, his sole issue is not preserved for appellate review and is overruled. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. AFFIRMED. ______________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice 1 We note that potential jurors who state they cannot consider the full range of punishment may properly be struck for cause. See Granados v. State, 85 S.W.3d 217, 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (“The State may challenge for cause a venire member” who has a bias or prejudice against . . . any phase of the law on which the State is entitled to rely for conviction or punishment. Jurors must be able to consider the full range of punishment provided by law for the crime charged.”) (footnotes omitted). 2 Submitted on April 6, 2016 Opinion Delivered April 13, 2016 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 3
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.
