Vaughn v. State

I respectfully dissent. The majority hold that Rosalind Alexander unequivocally stated she “ha[d] a bias or prejudice in favor of or against the defendant.” Tex. Code CRIM.PROC.Ann. art. 35.16(a)(9) (Vernon 1989). Thus, they conclude that she was disqualified as a matter of law. The majority rely on Anderson v. State, 633 S.W.2d 851, 854 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1982), for the rule of law that, when a prospective juror is shown to be biased as a matter of law, the juror must be excused when challenged. They ignore, however, the further teaching of that case that “it is left to the…