AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed November 5, 2012.
In The
Qnitrt of A.qnmts
FiftIi Iitrirt of ixaa at at1a
No. 05-I 1-00531-CR
AEFONSO A. ZUNIGA, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F09-62078-P
OPINION
Before Justices O’Neill, FitzGerald, and Lang-Miers
Opinion By Justice Lang-Miers
A jury convicted appellant Alfonso A. Zuniga of aggravated sexual assault with a deadly
weapon and assessed punishment at life in prison. In one issue on appeal appellant complains that
the trial court failed to administer the jury oath. We resolve appellant’s sole issue against him and
affirm.
Appellant argues that the verdict in this case is void because it was rendered by an unsworn
jury. There are two references to the jury oath in the reporter’s record. First, after the conclusion
of voir dire on a Wednesday, the trial court told the jury that he would swear them in on the
following Monday morning, when the trial was scheduled to begin:
THE COURT: . . . I need to swear you in.
THE COURT: Does either side mind if I swear them in Monday morning?
The State j: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. So with that said. i’ll let the bailiffs show you where
you need to go, and I will swear you in Monday morning.
Second. when the proceedings resumed on Monday, the trial court stated that it swore (he jury in on
the previous Wednesday:
[The State]: I think, Judge, that the record should reflect, I believe, on
Friday aftemoom--- I’m not sure if the record reflects this, but
I believe that the Court swore in the jury Friday afternoon
or----
THE COURT: Idid,
[The State]: ---or Wednesday.
TKE COURT: Yes.
[The State]: So this jury is sworn.
Unless it is disputed at trial or the record affirmatively shows to the contrary, we are required
to presume that the jury was properly impaneled and sworn. TEx. R. App. P. 44.2(c)(2). Based on
the passages quoted above, appellant argues that the record affirmatively shows that no oath was
given. We disagree. Although a transcription of the oath is not part of the reporter’s record, the trial
court stated on the record that the oath was administered. In addition, the judgment states, “A jury
was selected, impaneled, and sworn.” In this case we are required to presume that the jury was
properly impaneled and sworn because the issue was not disputed at trial and the record does not
affirmatively show that the jury was not sworn. See id. We resolve appellant’s sole issue against
—7—
hun and affirm.
Do Not Publish
TEx. R. APP. P.47
1 1053 IFIJ05
(vttrt uf Apictti
fiftI! htrtrt uf !Jrxai at a11a;
JUDGMENT
ALFONSO A. ZUNIGA, Appellant Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District
Court of Dallas County. Texas. (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-1 1-00531-CR V. F09-6207-P).
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers,
TIlE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices O’Neill and FitzGerald
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered November 5, 2012.
z;.i
/ //
F /
/ —
- — -
4.LIZ&BETH LA’NC-M11JS
JUS4iCE