Yanez v. State

What is implicit in the opinion of the Court ought to be made explicit: We reject the holding in Brown v. State, 639 S.W.2d 505 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1982), that “questioning as to the qualifications of the veniremen constitutes voir dire by the trial court” for purposes of determining when voir dire begins in relation to a demand by an accused or the prosecution for a “shuffle” under Article 35.11, Y.A.C.C.P. An explanation is in order.

The provisions of Article 35.11, supra, were taken from former article 626, C.C.P. 1925. They originated in what was known as the “Interchangeable Jury Law,”…