Woerner v. State

523 S.W.2d 717, 1975 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 972
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 21, 1975
Docket49965
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 523 S.W.2d 717 (Woerner 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
Woerner v. State, 523 S.W.2d 717, 1975 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 972 (Tex. 1975).

Opinion

OPINION

BROWN, Commissioner.

The conviction is for burglary with intent to commit theft; the punishment, assessed by the jury, nine (9) years, probated.

In appellant’s second ground of error, he contends the court erred in failing to shuffle the names of the panel of jurors assigned to the case.

At the beginning of the trial, after the State announced ready, appellant moved that the jury panel be quashed. Subsequent to the denial of this motion, appellant requested the court to reshuffle the jury panel and redraw. This was also denied.

The right to have the jury panel assigned to a case redrawn is clearly provided for in Art. 35.11, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. See Dynes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 479 S. W.2d 676. The State contends that appellant has shown no harm as a result of being tried by a “non-random drawn jury.” We quote from Moore v. State, 132 Tex. Cr.R. 403, 105 S.W.2d 250, where this same problem was presented:

“ ‘It is no answer to this requirement of the statute to urge that no injury is shown; that appellant, by the means adopted, was furnished with a fair and impartial jury. We might go further, and say, according to this reasoning, the court might adopt any method outside of the statute which might secure a fair and impartial jury. The law has ordained a tribunal for the trial of criminal cases, and has provided the method of selecting a jury, and there is no authority to resort to any other method, and it is not incumbent on appellant to show that he suffered injury by the failure of the court to follow the statutory method.’ ” 1

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.

1

. Moore, supra, has been cited with approval in the following cases: De Joyas v. State, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 520, 150 S.W.2d 254; Rhodes v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 384, 350 S.W.2d 651; Fontenot v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 379 S.W.2d 334.

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

Related

Warmowski v. State
853 S.W.2d 575 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Ex Parte Daigle
848 S.W.2d 691 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Chappell v. State
850 S.W.2d 508 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Jones v. State
833 S.W.2d 146 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Williams v. State
719 S.W.2d 573 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1986)
S____ C v. State
715 S.W.2d 379 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Yanez v. State
677 S.W.2d 62 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1984)
Latham v. State
656 S.W.2d 478 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1983)
Sewell v. State
696 S.W.2d 559 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1983)
Espinosa v. State
653 S.W.2d 446 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Davis v. State
573 S.W.2d 780 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Como v. State
557 S.W.2d 93 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1977)
Alexander v. State
523 S.W.2d 720 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
523 S.W.2d 717, 1975 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woerner-v-state-texcrimapp-1975.