Barrett v. State

516 S.W.2d 181, 1974 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1956

Opinions

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is aggravated assault; the punishment, six months.

The sole question presented relates to the court’s action in limiting appellant’s voir dire examination of the jury panel to 30 minutes.

At the commencement of the selection proceedings, the trial court announced that each side would receive 30 minutes to conduct its voir dire examination of the jury panel. The court proceeded to instruct the panel on general principles of law affecting criminal cases, after which the prosecutor conducted his examination. Counsel for appellant then commenced his interrogation. He spoke to the panel for 21 minutes on general principles of law applicable to the case and only then began to ask questions of the jury panel. When the court informed him that his 30 minutes had elapsed, counsel objected and, outside the presence of the jury, introduced into evidence Exhibit B, “a computation of questions I have prepared over the years for voir dire examination,” and proposed to ask “each and every juror each and every question,” except where repetitious. The exhibit consisted of 26 legal size pages, single-spaced and typewritten, containing unedited, repetitious questions and comments covering general principles of criminal law, but also including material on robbery, child witnesses and other areas clearly not applicable to the case at bar. His requests to continue the voir dire and to question, for the record, those members of the panel he had not had an opportunity to examine individually were both denied.

Appellant relies on De La Rosa v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 414 S.W.2d 668. Both De La Rosa and the case at bar were tried before the same trial court and both involved the limitation of voir dire examination to 30 minutes. However, in De La Rosa, counsel addressed a few remarks to the jury panel as a whole and then moved directly into questioning individual members of the panel. At the lapse of the allotted 30-min-ute time period, he requested the court to permit him additional time to ask each juror approximately 15 questions he had earlier presented to the court. These questions, which this Court concluded appeared to be proper voir dire material, included, among others, a request for each juror’s address, marital status, place of employment, religious and educational background. Counsel’s request to continue voir dire, as well as his request to perfect his bill of exception to show how the jurors would have answered, was denied. The court then brusquely informed counsel he had five minutes in which to strike the jury list.

The case at bar, however, presents a different situation. In De La Rosa, counsel, as noted earlier, proposed to propound approximately 15 specific questions in order to elicit information such as each panel member’s address, marital status, occupation, etc. Unlike De La Rosa, counsel in the case at bar had juror information cards filled out by panel members in his possession, which provided just the type of information counsel in De La Rosa had requested the extra time to secure. Nevertheless, counsel in the case at bar sought to extend the voir dire proceedings indefinitely by proposing to propound an unspecified number of additional questions to the panel. His request did not state why he required additional time in this particular case, nor did his unorganized array of questions present the court with a concise proposal upon which to base his decision on whether to continue voir dire or not.

This Court does not condone the arbitrary limitation of voir dire. However, under the circumstances presented here, we are unable to conclude the trial court abused his discretion in limiting the voir dire. Grizzell v. State, Tex.Cr.R. 362, 298 S.W.2d 816; Livingston v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 302, 214 S.W.2d 119. Appellant was neither effectively denied an opportunity to examine the panel nor unfairly prohibited from conducting his inquiry. Counsel has a duty, within reasonable bounds, to budget his time. The trial court may, within reason, limit voir dire examination in order to avoid undue and unnecessary prolongation of the trial. Hernandez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 508 S.W.2d 853 (concurring opinion); De La Rosa v. State, supra; Grizzell v. State, supra.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.