11th Court of Appeals
Eastland, Texas
Opinion
Eric Jerome Gilmore
Appellant
Vs. No. 11-96-00383-CR -- Appeal from Taylor County
State of Texas
Appellee
On Remand
Eric Jerome Gilmore, appellant, was found guilty of aggravated assault and sentenced to confinement for 20 years. Upon original submission, we held that appellant was harmed because the jury was not allowed to consider the lesser included offense. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed our judgment and remanded the cause for consideration of appellant=s remaining three points of error.[1] We affirm.
The prior proceedings disposed of appellant=s first three points of error. Appellant=s fourth point of error is that the trial court erred in responding to the jury=s question regarding appellant=s credit for jail time served because the response invaded the province of the executive branch. Appellant=s fifth point of error is that the trial court abused its discretion in excusing a juror, over appellant=s objection, and allowing appellant to be improperly convicted by a jury of fewer than 12 jurors in violation of TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 36.29 (Vernon Pamph. Supp. 2004 - 2005). Appellant=s sixth point of error is that the trial court erred in failing to grant appellant=s motion for mistrial following the trial court=s dismissal of one of the jurors.
Jury Note
After the jury retired to deliberate, it sent a note to the trial court. The note read, AWill Mr. Gilmore get credit for time served and if so how long has he been in jail?@ The trial court answered, AMr. Gilmore will get credit for the time he has been in jail. You will recall the evidence on the length of time he had been in jail.@
When the trial court responds substantively to a jury question during deliberations, that communication amounts to an additional or supplemental jury instruction. Daniell v. State, 848 S.W.2d 145, 147 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). Therefore, in determining whether the subject matter of the communication was proper, we look to the rules governing the court=s charge. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes the trial court to give instructions with regard to applicable law, but not to factual matters. TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 36.14 (Vernon Supp. 2004 - 2005). If an instruction may be given in the original charge, it may be given as an additional instruction. Daniell v. State, supra at 147; Allaben v. State, 418 S.W.2d 517, 521 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). In this case, the additional instruction did not pertain to factual matters and was a correct statement of law.
Appellant argues that the trial court=s response to the jury note violated the separation of powers outlined in the Texas Constitution similar to the jury instruction held constitutionally invalid in Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Cr.App.1987). The constitutional issue in Rose concerned former TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. art. 37.07, ' 4(a) (1985), which required trial courts to instruct the juries regarding good conduct time and parole eligibility. Former Article 37.07, section 4(a) authorized the jury to consider the existence of good conduct time and parole law, but it did not allow the jury to consider the extent to which good conduct time might be awarded to or forfeited by the particular defendant or how the parole law might be applied to the defendant. The Rose majority reasoned that juries B being made aware of good conduct time and parole B would increase sentences to make certain that defendants served a minimum amount of time and thereby thwart the executive branch=s prerogative of awarding good conduct time and granting parole. The Rose court held that the instruction in former Article 37.07 was unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers provision of TEX. CONST. art. III, ' 1 and the due course of law clauses of TEX. CONST. art. I, '' 13 & 19.
Subsequent to the Rose decision, the Texas Constitution was amended to specifically authorize the enactment of legislation permitting courts to inform juries about the effect of good conduct time and eligibility for parole on the period of incarceration served by the defendant. TEX. CONST. art. 14, ' 11(a). The same legislature that adopted the constitutional amendment also reenacted TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 37.07, ' 4(a) (Vernon Pamph. Supp. 2004 - 2005).
It has long been recognized that the power to define offenses and fix punishments is reserved for the legislature. Baker v. State, 158 S.W. 998, 1002 (Tex.Cr.App.1913). The constitution confers upon the legislature the authority and power to define crimes and fix the punishment. Baker v. State, supra. When the legislature enacts a law defining a crime and fixing the penalty, unless vetoed by the governor, it becomes the law of the land. Baker v. State, supra.
TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 42.03, ' 2(a) (Vernon Pamph. Supp. 2004 - 2005) states in relevant part that A[i]n all criminal cases the judge of the court in which the defendant was convicted shall give the defendant credit on his sentence for the time that the defendant has spent in jail in said cause.@ Time already served by a defendant is credited to the pronounced sentence by statute; and the time credited is not variable, is not based on a defendant=s behavior, and its determination is not within the trial court=s discretion. The additional instruction by the trial court below was proper, and there was no infringement by the trial court on the clemency powers of the executive.
Appellant also argues that he could not object to the trial court=s response because he was not made aware of the note sent out by the jury or the trial court=s answer. In the absence of a showing to the contrary in the record, we presume the trial court=s response was in open court and in appellant=s presence. Green v. State, 912 S.W.2d 189 (Tex.Cr.App.1995). Therefore, we presume that appellant had an opportunity to object. Appellant=s fourth point of error is overruled.
Dismissal of Juror
The jury was empaneled on November 18, 1996. On day two of the trial, the trial court informed the attorneys that Juror Candace McLeod was at the hospital with her son. Juror McLeod=s son was taken to the hospital during the night with a high fever and asthma. Juror McLeod advised the court that she believed her son would be discharged; however, she had no one to take care of him as her husband was out of the country on a temporary duty assignment. Over appellant=s objection, the trial court dismissed Juror McLeod from jury service and proceeded with 11 jurors. Appellant then asked for a mistrial based on proceeding with only 11 jurors. The trial court denied the motion or mistrial. Because Juror McLeod was dismissed, the number of African-Americans on the jury was reduced to one.
Appellant argues that the trial court violated the mandates of Article 36.29 by excusing Juror McLeod. Appellant argues that the trial court should not have excused Juror McLeod because she was not disabled as defined by Article 36.29. Appellant also argues that Juror McLeod did not have any physical illness, mental condition, or emotional states which hindered her ability to perform her duties as a juror. Appellant further argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant appellant=s motion for mistrial following the trial court=s dismissal of Juror McLeod.
ADisabled@ means any condition that inhibits the juror from fully and fairly performing the functions of a juror. Absent an abuse of discretion by the trial judge in determining disability of the juror, no reversible error is shown. Griffith v. State, 486 S.W.2d 948, 951 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that emotional pressures due to an illness in the family will justify discharge under Article 36.29. Carrillo v. State, 597 S.W.2d 769, 770 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). Likewise, the pressure of having a sick child with no one to help take care of him justified the trial court=s decision to discharge Juror McLeod. Edwards v. State, 981 S.W.2d 359, 367 (Tex.App. - Texarkana 1998, no pet=n). We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Juror McLeod could not perform her duties as a juror. Likewise, the trial court did not err in denying appellant=s motion for mistrial. Points of Error Nos. 5 and 6 are overruled.
This Court=s Ruling
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
TERRY McCALL
JUSTICE
July 7, 2005
Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and
Wright, J., and McCall, J.
[1]Eric Jerome Gilmore v. State, No. 0469-99 (Tex.Cr.App. June 23, 2004)(not designated for publication).