Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Antonio Cuevas v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-08-00014-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; October 9, 2008; Texas; State Appellate Court
Antonio Cuevas appeals his conviction for robbery and a thirteen-year sentence, arguing that the trial court erred by conducting voir dire in his absence, violating Article 33.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The background reveals that Cuevas orchestrated a robbery involving two accomplices, who assaulted the victim and stole property. During the trial, Cuevas's attorney objected to the voir dire of a panel that had previously participated in an unrelated case, asserting that Cuevas had a right to be present and informed. The trial court overruled the objection, and the jury ultimately found Cuevas guilty. On appeal, Cuevas contends that the prior voir dire allowed the prosecutor to build rapport with jurors without his presence, constituting harmful error. The court, however, relied on precedents from Ballard and Lain, clarifying that the previous voir dire was not equivalent to Cuevas's case, as he had the opportunity to conduct a complete voir dire with the entire panel. The appeal was affirmed, with the court rejecting Cuevas's arguments regarding his absence during the voir dire process. Cuevas had the opportunity to conduct voir dire with both the morning session panel and new panel members during his trial. He argued, referencing Bledsoe v. State, that he was harmed by his absence from a voir dire session in another case. However, the Bledsoe case is distinguishable as it involved a defendant who was absent for the entire voir dire process, resulting in harm due to inability to interact with potential jurors and assist counsel. In contrast, Cuevas was present for the full voir dire of his trial and interacted with each panel member. Even if Cuevas could demonstrate he was absent during some part of the relevant voir dire, the court would still reject his argument because any procedural deviation was rectified by his later opportunity to re-examine those jurors. As Cuevas was able to voir dire all members from the morning session, the requirements of article 33.03 were satisfied. Consequently, the court overruled his point and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.