Blanchard, Brant Ray v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 23, 2005
Docket14-04-00482-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Blanchard, Brant Ray v. State (Blanchard, Brant Ray v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Blanchard, Brant Ray v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed November 23, 2005

Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed November 23, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-00482-CR

BRANT RAY BLANCHARD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

___________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 955,512

C O N C U R R I N G   O P I N I O N

Notwithstanding my concern about the trial court=s limitation of time for completion of voir dire, I am constrained by controlling authority to concur with the majority. 

The trial court exercised its discretion after hearing conflicting evidence relative to misconduct by juror number eleven and overruled appellant=s motion for new trial.  We must defer to the trial court=s decision to accept or reject any part of the testimony proffered by appellant=s trial counsel.  Ford v. State, 129 S.W.3d 541, 547 (Tex. App.CDallas, 2003 pet. ref=d).


I write to express my deep concern about the judicial penchant for time restrictions on voir dire.  During oral argument, appellant=s counsel suggested that appellant=s trial attorney was forced to rely on the accuracy and completeness of jurors= answers to the State=s questions because of the trial court=s time constraints.  The trial court allowed thirty minutes for each side.  It is my considered opinion that a thirty-minute limitation for voir dire effectively precludes defense counsel from fulfilling the requirement to ask specific questions of each juror in order to preserve error for juror misconduct.  See Gonzales v. State, 3 S.W.3d 915, 916 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Armstrong v. State, 897 S.W.2d 361, 363B64 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).

/s/        Charles W. Seymore

Justice

Judgment rendered and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed November 23, 2005.

Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Edelman, and Seymore.  (Hudson, J., majority.)

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ford v. State
129 S.W.3d 541 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Gonzales v. State
3 S.W.3d 915 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Armstrong v. State
897 S.W.2d 361 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Blanchard, Brant Ray v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blanchard-brant-ray-v-state-texapp-2005.