TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-97-00365-CR
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
NO. 0962615, HONORABLE JON W. WISSER, JUDGE PRESIDING
During the prosecutor's questioning of the jury panel, he asked whether they could convict a defendant in an indecency with a child case if the only witness was the victim and they believed her beyond a reasonable doubt. Veniremember Fagan responded by asking, "Well, how old is the child? Does it matter?" Fagan then stated, "I don't know" and "I can't decide on that." After the prosecutor and defense counsel finished addressing the venire, the trial court called Fagan to the bench where the following relevant colloquy ensued:
MR. MANGE [prosecutor]: If a child -- if the State of Texas brought a case of indecency with a child by contact and only brought one witness, namely the victim, and she takes the stand and she testified so believable, so convincingly that you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that that child is telling the truth, that she not only believes it, but that she is, in fact, the person she points the finger at you would -- the person who sexually molested her. Can you convict based on the evidence that one witness who you believe beyond a reasonable doubt?
MR. FAGAN [veniremember]: That's the only evidence?
MR. MANGE: That's the only evidence and the defendant invokes his right to remain silent. You cannot hold that against him. Can you --
MR. FAGAN: The only problem I have is I feel she could possibly believe that it happened and --
* * * * *
MR. MANGE: -- ask you to assume something. Ask you to assume something was a hard leap, but a leap that everybody can make. You're not just assuming that, you are assuming that she is, in fact, correct, that you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that she has got the finger pointed at the right guy, can you convict?
MR. FAGAN: Probably. I don't know if I could say yes or no because --
MR. SAWYER [defense counsel]: Let me just ask you this way: If a guy holds up a woman in the parking lot, all right. She is the only person that testifies, not another soul around. You're in the jury box and you are who you are and you say, you know what? I believe her. I believe she knows what she is talking about. I believe she has identified the right guy. I believe there was sufficient lighting. I just flat believe her. And it's good enough for me according to everything I think and feel. You wouldn't have a problem with convicting in a case, would you?
MR. FAGAN: Just if she points to the guy and says that's him?
MR. SAWYER: But you believe her. You sit there and you raise every question you can.
MR. FAGAN: But she is an adult.
MR. SAWYER: She is 14 instead of an adult.
MR. FAGAN: I would have a hard time with a fourteen-year-old pointing --
MR. SAWYER: And I realize that. That's a hard case. But I'm saying if you believed her, if after everything you used --
MR. FAGAN: I'm saying just because I believed her doesn't necessarily mean it happened, no, because I wasn't there when it happened.
MR. SAWYER: But you believed beyond a reasonable doubt, that was the law, could you convict or would you require more?
MR. FAGAN: I would require more. But it's hard to say because they couldn't offer more because there's no witnesses.
MR. SAWYER: All the evidence there was, could you convict?
MR. FAGAN: Probably not. I mean, once again, probably not. Okay.
(Emphasis added)
Appellant contends the trial court erred in sustaining the State's challenge for cause because veniremember Fagan's answers reflected that in his mind, the evidence could not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a one witness case.
We find appellant's reliance on Zinger v. State, 932 S.W.2d 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), to be misplaced. The Zinger court was careful to point out that the veniremember did not say he would hold the State to a burden higher than proof beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, he "stated that in his mind, the evidence could not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a case with one witness. Id. 514. Castillo v. State, 913 S.W.2d 529, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995), furnishes an excellent analysis for determining whether a veniremember is subject to challenge for cause in a similar one witness scenario:
Unless reasonable doubt is a fixed point--unless, in other words, the law requires a jury to convict whenever presented with legally sufficient evidence--a venireman who will not be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt on the testimony of a single eyewitness is nevertheless a venireman who can follow the law. If the State does not want that venireman on the jury, it is obliged to use one of its statutorily allotted peremptory challenges to remove him.
This is not to say that a venireman who maintains he would never convict on the basis of one eyewitness is never properly the subject of a State's challenge for cause. It depends upon the reason he says he would never convict. A venireman who says, for instance, that he could not convict even if he believed the State's only eyewitness, and that testimony convinced him beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, can be challenged for cause . . . . Such a venireman really does hold the State to a higher burden of proof than the law allows. He has an agenda of his own for conviction, but one which bears no relation to the law.
(Citations omitted) (emphasis added).
The veniremember in the instant cause would require a higher burden of proof than testimony which convinced him beyond a reasonable doubt, a burden higher than the law provides. See Coleman v. State, 881 S.W.2d 344, 359-360 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). We hold that the trial court did not err in sustaining the State's challenge for cause to the veniremember Fagan. Appellant's point of error is overruled.
The judgment is affirmed.
Tom G. Davis, Justice
Before Justices Powers, Kidd and Davis*
Affirmed
Filed: August 13, 1998
Do Not Publish
* Before Tom G. Davis, Judge (retired), Court of Criminal Appeals, sitting by assignment. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 74.003(b) (West 1988).
MR. FAGAN: I would have a hard time with a fourteen-year-old pointing --
MR. SAWYER: And I realize that. That's a hard case. But I'm saying if you believed her, if after everything you used --
MR. FAGAN: I'm saying just because I believed her doesn't necessarily mean it happened, no, because I wasn't there when it happened.
MR. SAWYER: But you believed beyond a reasonable doubt, that was the law, could you convict or would you require more?
MR. FAGAN: I would require more. But it's hard to say because they couldn't offer more because there's no witnesses.
MR. SAWYER: All the evidence there was, could you convict?
MR. FAGAN: Probably not. I mean, once again, probably not. Okay.
(Emphasis added)
Appellant contends the trial court erred in sustaining the State's challenge for cause because veniremember Fagan's answers reflected that in his mind, the evidence could not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a one witness case.
We find appellant's reliance on Zinger v. State, 932 S.W.2d 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), to be misplaced. The Zinger court was careful to point out that the veniremember did not say he would hold the State to a burden higher than proof beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, he "stated that in his mind, the evidence could not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a case with one witness. Id. 514. Castillo v. State, 913 S.W.2d 529, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995), furnishes an excellent analysis for determining whether a veniremember is subject to challenge for cause in a similar one witness scenario:
Unless reasonable doubt is a fixed point--unless, in other words, the law requires a jury to convict whenever presented with legally sufficient evidence--a venireman who will not be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt on the testimony of a single eyewitness is nevertheless a venireman who can follow the law. If the State does not want that venireman on the jury, it is obliged to use one of its statutorily allotted peremptory challenges to remove him.
This is not to say that a venireman who maintains he would never convict on the basis of one eyewitness is never properly the subject of a State's challenge for cause. It depends upon the reason he says he would never convict. A venireman who says, for instance, that he could not convict even if he believed the State's only eyewitness, and that testimony convinced him beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, can be challenged for cause . . . . Such a venireman really does hold the State to a higher burden of proof than the law allows. He has an agenda of his own for conviction, but one which bears no relation to the law.
(Citations omitted) (emphasis added).
The veniremember in the instant cause would require a higher burden of proof than testimony which convinced him beyond a reasonable doubt, a burden higher than the law provides. See Coleman v. State, 881 S.W.2d 344, 359-360 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). We hold that the trial court did not err in sustaining the State's challenge for cause to the veniremember Fagan. Appellant's point of error is overruled.
The judgment is affirmed.
Tom G. Davis, Justice
Before Justices Powers, Kidd and Davis*
Affirmed
Filed: August 13, 1998
Do Not Publish
* Before Tom G. Davis, Judge (retired), Court of Criminal Appeals, sitting by assignment. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 74.003(b) (West