(DOWNLOAD) "Frederick Gerome Oliver v. State Texas" by Fifth District, Dallas No. 05-86-00966-CR Court of Appeals of Texas # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
![Frederick Gerome Oliver v. State Texas](https://is1-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Publication/v4/75/85/30/758530c7-e923-089e-8c24-1f66ca808fb4/source/700x700bb.jpg)
eBook details
- Title: Frederick Gerome Oliver v. State Texas
- Author : Fifth District, Dallas No. 05-86-00966-CR Court of Appeals of Texas
- Release Date : January 26, 1987
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 64 KB
Description
Opinion BY JUSTICE HECHT A jury convicted Frederick Gerome Oliver of kidnapping and assessed punishment at 99 years' imprisonment and a $4,000 fine. The trial court permitted defense counsel to inquire of prospective jurors with prior jury service in criminal cases whether they were selected to assess punishment, but refused to allow the further inquiry of whether they actually did assess punishment. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court's ruling was an abuse of discretion. We answer no and affirm the judgment of the trial court. The State argues that there is no significant difference between the allowed question -- whether the jury on which the prospective juror previously served was selected to assess punishment -- and the disallowed question -- whether that jury actually did assess punishment. Strictly speaking, however, the two questions are quite different. The allowed question merely inquires whether the accused in the former case chose prior to trial to have his punishment assessed by the jury rather than the court. A correct answer to the question would reveal nothing about whether the accused was found guilty. The disallowed question, on the other hand, yields additional information; for if a jury actually assesses punishment in a case, the accused has either pled guilty or been found guilty. Someone who would know how infrequently defendants plead guilty before juries would know the likelihood that a prospective juror who actually assessed punishment in a case also found the defendant guilty.