IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
FROM THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
BOWIE COUNTY
O P I N I O N
I respectfully dissent.
The error that we have already found in this case was the trial court's failure to permit further questioning of juror Spradlin concerning any actual bias she might harbor against appellant. The constitutional question, however, is whether appellant's Sixth Amendment right to trial by an impartial jury was violated. If Ms. Spradlin was actually biased against appellant, he did not receive his constitutionally guaranteed right to trial by an impartial jury. But if Ms. Spradlin did not harbor any actual bias against appellant, he did receive a constitutionally fair trial by an impartial jury. Under well-established federal precedent, the defendant must show that the juror had an actual bias against him before he is entitled to relief. I would therefore follow federal precedent and abate this case to the trial court to give appellant the opportunity to call Ms. Spradlin and question her about her relationship with C.N.T. If Ms. Spradlin was actually biased against appellant, he has suffered constitutional harm. If she was not biased, appellant was tried by a fair and impartial jury and he has suffered no harm at all, despite the trial court's error.
I.
During voir dire in this case, the State asked the jury panel if anyone knew C.N.T., the complainant in this aggravated sexual assault of a child trial. No one said they did. Appellant did not inquire further and he did not ask C.N.T. to enter the courtroom or stand up so the jury panel could see her in person. After the jury was empaneled, the State called C.N.T. to the witness stand. As soon as C.N.T. took the witness stand, Juror Spradlin passed a note to the judge stating that she now recognized C.N.T. As we stated in our original opinion in this case:
Apparently, Juror Spradlin had a daughter in the same girl scout troop as C.N.T., and Juror Spradlin was that girl scout troop's assistant leader. She had not recognized the name, but knew C.N.T. when she saw her. The trial court judge asked Juror Spradlin if she could listen to the evidence in the case and base her judgment just on what she heard from the stand. Juror Spradlin stated that she could. (1)
Appellant's counsel immediately moved for a mistrial. The trial judge refused that request, stating: "I think it was obvious from seeing her that she had no idea who this witness was until she saw her come into the courtroom." Appellant then requested an opportunity to question Ms. Spradlin further about her relationship with C.N.T. Again the trial judge refused: "I'm not going to permit that because you had ample opportunity on voir dire." The State argued that appellant had failed to show any harm because there was no indication that Juror Spradlin would be unfair or partial. Appellant objected again, observing that "[t]he reason that there is no evidence of any potential biases, of course, the Court is preventing me from further developing that testimony from that particular juror once that relationship has been established." Appellant's counsel then set out on the record the questions he would have asked Juror Spradlin about her relationship with C.N.T. had he been permitted to do so. These were all appropriate questions and appellant should have been allowed to ask them.
The trial court erred in refusing to allow further inquiry into the juror's potential bias. In our prior opinion, we held that appellant properly preserved this error and remanded the case for the court of appeals to conduct a harm analysis. (2) On remand, the court of appeals held that this was constitutional error because appellant was deprived of his right to "question the members of the jury panel in order to intelligently exercise peremptory challenges." (3) This seems a peculiar conclusion because appellant could have questioned Ms. Spradlin during voir dire until the cows came home, but until Ms. Spradlin saw C.N.T. she would not have realized that she knew her.
It seems to me that the problem here has nothing to do with voir dire and nothing to do with the exercise of peremptory challenges. Voir dire was over when this problem surfaced. Instead, the issue is whether a biased juror sat on appellant's jury. This scenario and the constitutional issue it presents are very familiar to the federal courts. Therefore, I think that we should follow federal precedent in dealing with this constitutional issue. Under federal precedent, the proper remedy is to remand the case to the trial court for a hearing. (4)
II.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right to a trial by an impartial jury. (5) This right to trial by an impartial jury lies at the heart of due process. (6) The Constitution provides no specific tests of juror partiality or bias, but the United States Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he bias of a juror may be actual or implied; that is, it may be bias in fact or bias conclusively presumed as [a] matter of law." (7)
Although there are a few exceptional circumstances in which "implied bias" may be presumed as a matter of law, (8) normally a party seeking a new trial (or, as in this case, a mistrial) must show a juror's "actual bias." (9)
To obtain a new trial for actual juror bias, a defendant must show: 1) that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question during voir dire; and 2) that a correct response would have provided the basis for a challenge for cause. (10) This is the test applied when a juror intentionally conceals information. (11) The Supreme Court explained in McDonough that "[t]he motives for concealing information may vary, but only those reasons that affect a juror's impartiality can truly be said to affect the fairness of a trial." (12) Inaccurate responses to voir dire questions are excused when caused by inattention or when a query does not elicit the specific information relevant to the juror's possible disqualification. (13) Even when a juror's failure to disclose information on voir dire is dishonest rather than mistaken, "his behavior is not a basis for reversal unless the dishonesty appears to be rooted in bias or prejudice." (14)
Under the Supreme Court's constitutional standard:
A juror ... need not be disqualified merely because he or she knows the defendant or has some knowledge about the case. A defendant must show that the knowledge somehow impaired-or had the ineluctable tendency to impair-the juror's neutrality. That is to say, the defendant must show actual, or at least likely, prejudice stemming from the participation of the allegedly biased juror. (15)
The mere fact that a juror was the former "paramour" of the defendant's son was insufficient to show actual prejudice; (16) the fact that a juror was the friend of the murder victim was insufficient; (17) the fact that one defendant and a juror had previously had a disagreement over a bill was insufficient; (18) and the fact that a juror, although questioned repeatedly, failed to disclose that she had been previously convicted of theft and sat on a trial involving federal income tax fraud, was insufficient. (19) There are a plethora of federal cases addressing precisely the constitutional issue presented in this case. It seems to me that we should consult those cases before we reverse appellant's conviction on this constitutional basis. As the Supreme Court stated in McDonough:
To invalidate the result of a three-week trial because of a juror's mistaken, though honest response to a question, is to insist on something closer to perfection than our judicial system can be expected to give. A trial represents an important investment of private and social resources, and it ill serves the important end of finality to wipe the slate clean simply to recreate the peremptory challenge process because counsel lacked an item of information which objectively he should have obtained from a juror on voir dire examination. (20)
In this case, there is not a scintilla of suggestion that Ms. Spradlin "withheld" any information. Indeed, the moment she saw C.N.T. in person, she immediately informed the trial judge that she did, in fact, recognize the child, though she had not recognized the name. Surely this is a common phenomenon to us all. To guard against this problem, appellant could easily have asked C.N.T. and all of the witnesses to stand up in the courtroom and then ask the venire members if they recognized any of them. This is frequently done in Texas courtrooms. Appellant should not be punished for his failure to perform this simple voir dire exercise, (21) but neither should he obtain a reversal for that failure. As it stands, there is nothing in this record to suggest that Ms. Spradlin was biased against appellant. The problem in this case is that appellant was prevented from even attempting to explore or establish bias.
Appellant, the court of appeals, and the majority cast this constitutional claim as one involving the right to make intelligent peremptory challenges. But there is no federal constitutional right to peremptory challenges. (22) I believe that when a defendant relies upon the United States Constitution for his claim, we should address his claim under the United States Constitution and the controlling precedent of the United States Supreme Court. (23)
Furthermore, there are numerous federal cases, including McDonough itself, addressing the appropriate remedy when the trial court has not provided an adequate forum to develop the factual basis for the claim of a biased juror. That remedy is to remand the case to the trial court to give the defendant an opportunity to establish his claim of a biased juror. (24) I, like the Supreme Court, believe that a trial represents an important investment of private and social resources, an investment that is the main event, not a try-out on the road to appellate speculation about possible juror bias. Appellant is entitled to show actual bias, but we ought not assume it without support in the record.
I respectfully dissent to the majority's failure to follow federal constitutional law and procedure on appellant's federal constitutional claim.
Cochran, J.
Filed: June 30, 2004.
Publish
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. U.S. Const. amend. VI (" 6. 7. 8. 9. Appellant's argument suggests that this is an instance of "implied" or "presumed" juror bias.
He states: "Except immediate family members, one could hardly imagine a stronger relationship than
that which exists between a girl scout and her troop leader." I cannot accept that premise, but even so,
the record in this case indicates that Ms. Spradlin did not have a close relationship with C.N.T. because
she did not even recognize her name. Appellant provides no legal support for his argument that being a
crime victim's assistant girl scout leader raises "implied" or "presumed" bias.
10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.
We have found no published opinion upholding a challenge for cause based on a venireperson's mere acquaintance with the victim of the crime for which the defendant has been charged, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has squarely held that the mere fact that a juror knows the victim is not sufficient basis for disqualification. See Anderson v. State, 633 S.W.2d 851, 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). In Anderson, the juror was a school teacher at the school where the rape at issue occurred and knew the victim, who attended the school, and several of the State's witnesses, but did not know the defendant. The court stated: "Although such knowledge [of the victim] may be the source of an existing bias, 'the mere fact that a juror knows, or is a neighbor, or an intimate acquaintance of, and on friendly relations with, one of the parties to a suit, is not sufficient basis for disqualification.'"
65 F.3d at 419-20.
18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. In 24.