Roberts v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Roberts v. State

978 S.W.2d 580, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 134, 1998 WL 731379

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 21, 1998

Docket1481-97

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 978 S.W.2d 580 (Roberts v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roberts v. State, 978 S.W.2d 580, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 134, 1998 WL 731379 (Tex. 1998).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Bennie Earl Roberts, was convicted by a jury of delivery of a controlled substance and sentenced by the trial court to thirty years confinement. At the end of voir dire and over appellant’s objection, the trial court conducted a jury shuffle, after both sides had questioned jurors. As a result of the shuffle, two members of the jury panel who could not have been reached as originally seated were moved into the strike zone. Appellant exercised a peremptory strike to remove one of them.

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court committed reversible error in conducting a jury shuffle after the conclusion of voir dire. Roberts v. State, No. 12-94-00205-CR, slip op. at 5 (Tex.App.-Tyler August 29,1997, pet. granted) (not designated for publication). We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing appellant’s conviction for jury shuffle error without conducting a harm analysis.

At the time of its decision, the Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our decision in Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). There, we said:

Except for certain federal constitutional errors labeled by the United States Supreme Court as ‘structural,’ no error, whether it relates to jurisdiction, voluntariness of a plea, or any other mandatory requirement, is categorically immune to a harmless error analysis. Of course, where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis, then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under [former] Rule 81(b)(2) [now Rule 44.2],

Id. at 264 (footnote omitted). Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court to consider, in light of Cain and Tex.R.App. P. 44.2, whether the “jury shuffle” error which occurred at trial can be analyzed in terms of harm and, if so, whether any harm occurred.

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

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Bennie Earl Roberts, was convicted by a jury of delivery of a controlled substance and sentenced by the trial court to thirty years confinement. At the end of voir dire and over appellant’s objection, the trial court conducted a jury shuffle, after both sides had questioned jurors. As a result of the shuffle, two members of the jury panel who could not have been reached as originally seated were moved into the strike zone. Appellant exercised a peremptory strike to remove one of them.

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court committed reversible error in conducting a jury shuffle after the conclusion of voir dire. Roberts v. State, No. 12-94-00205-CR, slip op. at 5 (Tex.App.-Tyler August 29,1997, pet. granted) (not designated for publication). We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing appellant’s conviction for jury shuffle error without conducting a harm analysis.

At the time of its decision, the Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our decision in Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). There, we said:

Except for certain federal constitutional errors labeled by the United States Supreme Court as ‘structural,’ no error, whether it relates to jurisdiction, voluntariness of a plea, or any other mandatory requirement, is categorically immune to a harmless error analysis. Of course, where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis, then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under [former] Rule 81(b)(2) [now Rule 44.2],

Id. at 264 (footnote omitted). Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court to consider, in light of Cain and Tex.R.App. P. 44.2, whether the “jury shuffle” error which occurred at trial can be analyzed in terms of harm and, if so, whether any harm occurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

978 S.W.2d 580, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 134, 1998 WL 731379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-state-texcrimapp-1998.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack