Yanez v. State
This text of 679 S.W.2d 20 (Yanez 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.
Opinions
This is an appeal from a conviction by a jury for the offense of possession of marihuana. Punishment was assessed at confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections for a term of four years. We reverse and remand.
Appellant urges three grounds of error with no challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. His first ground contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to reshuffle the jury panel pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM.PRO .ANN. art. 35.11 (Vernon 1979).1
Smith v. State, 648 S.W.2d 695 (Tex.Cr.App.1983, en banc), is dispositive of this first ground of error wherein the court said:
Under this statute, a defendant or the State is entitled, upon demand, to have the jury panel reshuffled. Davis v. State, 573 S.W.2d 780 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Como v. State, 557 S.W.2d 93 (Tex.Cr.App.1977) _ Article 35.11 gives the defendant an absolute right to have the jury shuffled. This, of course, does not [21]*21allow the defendant to demand that the panel be continually reshuffled after his first motion has been granted. He is entitled, however, to the granting of that first motion, regardless of the manner in which the jury was originally assigned by the clerk.
Furthermore, appellant need not demonstrate that the trial court’s failure to shuffle the jurors upon proper motion resulted in his being harmed or having to take an unacceptable juror. Davis, supra; Como, supra. The statute is mandatory; the trial court must cause the jurors to be shuffled upon proper demand; the court erred in denying appellant’s motion to reshuffle. Archibald v. State, 629 S.W.2d 67 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1981), pet. ref'd, (July 21, 1982); Davis, supra.
See also Latham v. State, 656 S.W.2d 478 (Tex.Cr.App.1983, en banc).
This holding makes it unnecessary to consider the other two grounds of error.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
679 S.W.2d 20, 1983 Tex. App. LEXIS 5743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yanez-v-state-texapp-1983.