Gabriel Alvarado-Torrez v. State ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • Opinion filed August 18, 2016
    In The
    Eleventh Court of Appeals
    __________
    No. 11-14-00237-CR
    __________
    GABRIEL ALVARADO-TORREZ, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 142nd District Court
    Midland, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. CR41097
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    The jury convicted Gabriel Alvarado-Torrez of two counts of indecency with
    a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(a)(1) (West 2011). In count one, the
    jury assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for ten years and
    recommended that the imposition of the sentence be suspended and that he be placed
    on community supervision for ten years. A fine in the amount of $5,000 was also
    assessed. In count two, the jury assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for
    ten years and recommended that the imposition of the sentence be suspended and
    that he be placed on community supervision for ten years. A fine in the amount of
    $10,000 was also assessed, but it was suspended. There is no challenge to the
    sufficiency of the evidence. In Appellant’s sole issue on appeal, he contends that
    “the trial court erred when it allowed the State to ask ‘theories of punishment’
    questions binding the venireman’s answers to additional facts added to the State’s
    general inquiry.” We affirm.
    During voir dire, the prosecutor made “theories of punishment” statements
    and then gave the panel members certain answer choices relative to the statements.
    In the first statement, the prosecutor said: “A defendant who is remorseful should be
    punished less severely.” The prosecutor then submitted the following options from
    which the panel members could choose:
    1. Strongly agree. Pain of guilt is punishment enough.
    2. Agree. Remorse should be considered more than the crime
    committed.
    3. Disagree. Remorse is good but it doesn’t change what happened.
    4. Strongly disagree. Everyone is sorry afterward.
    In the second statement, the prosecutor said:
    The importance of the victim when assessing punishment is:
    1. Not important. Only the Defendant’s actions and past matter.
    2. Slightly important. Victims matter, the defendants matter more.
    3. Important. Victims matter more than defendants.
    4. Very important. The harm caused is the main consideration.
    A question is proper if it is designed to ascertain a juror’s views on an issue
    applicable to the case. Barajas v. State, 
    93 S.W.3d 36
    , 38 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
    Because a trial court has broad discretion over the process of selecting a jury, an
    2
    appellate court should not disturb a trial court’s ruling made during voir dire absent
    an abuse of discretion. 
    Id. However, commitment
    questions may not be asked.
    Standefer v. State, 
    59 S.W.3d 177
    , 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). A commitment
    question is a voir dire question that seeks to “commit a prospective juror to resolve,
    or to refrain from resolving, an issue a certain way after learning a particular fact.”
    
    Id. A commitment
    question is improper only when the law does not require such a
    commitment and when the question includes facts beyond those necessary to support
    a challenge for cause. 
    Id. at 181–82.
          Appellant contends that these voir dire questions went beyond the scope of
    “theories of punishment” inquiries and were improper commitment questions.
    Appellant concedes that “theories of punishment” questions are permissible, but he
    asserts that the predetermined answers were an additional set of facts that attached
    an “additional qualifier, or factual conclusion, on the venireman’s response.” The
    State argues, however, that the questions and responses did not bind the prospective
    jurors to any particular verdict on punishment. Further, the State contends that the
    questions were “designed to elicit information on the juror’s philosophy and priority
    on the purpose of punishment concerning issues of the impact on the victim and the
    remorse, if any, shown by a defendant.”
    Commitment questions often require a “yes” or “no” answer, and they
    frequently include words such as “could,” “would,” or “consider.” Lydia v. State,
    
    109 S.W.3d 495
    , 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). In this case, no such words were used
    in the voir dire questions. Further, the State did not inject facts specific to this
    particular case but, rather, asked the prospective jurors how they felt about a
    defendant who was remorseful and about the importance of the victim when
    assessing punishment. We agree with the State that the questions were an inquiry
    into the prospective jurors’ general philosophies regarding victim impact and
    defendants’ remorse. We hold that the questions were not commitment questions;
    3
    therefore, the trial court did not err when it allowed the State to ask the questions.
    Appellant’s sole issue on appeal is overruled.
    We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
    JIM R. WRIGHT
    CHIEF JUSTICE
    August 18, 2016
    Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
    Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
    Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-14-00237-CR

Filed Date: 8/18/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/24/2016