Sanchez, Arthur Garcia

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Sanchez, Arthur Garcia

DecidedJune 22, 2005

DocketPD-1230-04

StatusPublished

This text of Sanchez, Arthur Garcia (Sanchez, Arthur Garcia) 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

Sanchez, Arthur Garcia, (Tex. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

PD-1230-04

ARTHUR GARCIA SANCHEZ, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS BEXAR COUNTY

Womack, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Keller, P.J., joined.

I join the opinion of the Court with the understanding that the first two paragraphs in Part II of the opinion (ante, at 4) do not say that voir dire examination is justified by the second and third of the three "possible purposes" that are mentioned. The author of the opinion has joined the view, which I have set out elsewhere, that the peremptory-challenge procedure does not justify a party's questioning the jurors about matters other than their qualifications to serve. See Barajas v. State, 93 S.W.3d 36, 42 (Tex. Cr. App. 2002) (concurring opinion). And I feel sure that no member of the Court thinks that "indoctrinat[ing] the jurors" is a legitimate purpose.

En banc.

Filed June 22, 2005.

Publish.

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

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

PD-1230-04

ARTHUR GARCIA SANCHEZ, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS BEXAR COUNTY

Womack, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Keller, P.J., joined.

I join the opinion of the Court with the understanding that the first two paragraphs in Part II of the opinion (ante, at 4) do not say that voir dire examination is justified by the second and third of the three "possible purposes" that are mentioned. The author of the opinion has joined the view, which I have set out elsewhere, that the peremptory-challenge procedure does not justify a party's questioning the jurors about matters other than their qualifications to serve. See Barajas v. State, 93 S.W.3d 36, 42 (Tex. Cr. App. 2002) (concurring opinion). And I feel sure that no member of the Court thinks that "indoctrinat[ing] the jurors" is a legitimate purpose.

En banc.

Filed June 22, 2005.

Publish.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sanchez, Arthur Garcia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchez-arthur-garcia-texcrimapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack